a report from Councilor E. Denise Simmons, Co-Chair and Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui Co-Chair of the Housing Committee for a public hearing held on April 25, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sullivan Chamber to continue discussion on the Affordable Housing Overlay District and other related matters

Attachment A Opening Remarks for Housing Committee Hearing April 25, 2019, 6 pm in Sullivan Chamber Call of the Meeting: "The Housing Committee shall meet to continue discussions on the Affordable Housing Overlay District and other related matters." Good evening, Tonight, the Housing Committee is meeting to continue our discussion on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay District. We have now had numerous hearings devoted to reviewing and deliberating upon this topic, the Community Development Department has both provided the overview of what we hope to achieve with the proposed Overlay District, and they have walked us through the proposed language for this. I understand that tonight, they plan on giving us an update on some tweaks they've made to the proposed Ordinance - and I will say upfront that, at this point in the discussion, my strong feeling is that the Ordinance Committee, being a committee-of-the-whole, would be the most appropriate place to hold further discussions going forward. I want to note, right at the top of this hearing, that tonight marks a somber occasion for this Committee, for the Cambridge Community, and for me personally. Two days ago, Cheryl-Ann Pizza-Zeoli passed away after a long illness. She was a member of the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, a co-founder of the Alliance of Cambridge Tenants, a walking encyclopedia regarding housing policies, and

someone who worked tooth and nail FOR DECADES to increase the amount of affordable housing in this community. These past few months, she knew she didn't have much time left, and she STILL continued attending these hearings until it was no longer physically possible. And when she was too ill to leave her bed, she was STILL emailing her comments, observations, and analysis to the members of this Housing Committee - because SHE TRULY CARED ABOUT WHAT KIND OF COMMUNITY SHE'D BE LEAVING BEHIND. Her commitment to engaging in this discussion up until the very end speaks to what a courageous, compassionate person she was. We've left an empty space at the table tonight in her honor, and it's a vacancy that truly shall never be filled. I know Cheryl-Ann would never forgive me if I didn't use this somber moment to reflect upon some of the fundamental points she repeatedly stressed to us in past hearings: that time IS precious and fleeting, and that sometimes in these heated public discussions, we're in danger of losing the forest for the trees. She often said that, when we have these discussions about affordable housing policies, at the end of the day we are really talking about PEOPLE. We are talking about finding ways to be more welcoming to PEOPLE. We are talking about some of us possibly making some concessions to provide new opportunities for the less affluent to remain an important part of this community.

We are talking about PEOPLE. I very much hope that the echoes of Cheryl-Ann's words continue to resonate and guide us as the discussions continue. In the interest of being respectful of peoples' time, tonight we are going to have Public Comment immediately after the Co-Chairs give their opening remarks, so that if people wish to leave after they've spoken, they'll be free to do so. After Public Comment, we will hear an update from the CDD, and then we'll open the floor to general discussion among the Committee members. Again, it is my strong feeling that the Housing Committee has taken this discussion to the point where it would be most appropriate to ask the Ordinance Committee to begin hearings on the proposed Overlay. If that DOES happen, I wish to assure people that this will provide ample opportunity to further weigh in on this process, digest the material, and -I HOPE - reach a consensus. I will ask my Housing Committee Co-Chair if she has any opening remarks, followed by Public Comment, followed by hearing from the CDD. With that, I'll ask my Co-Chair to share any opening thoughts she may have. Thank you.

Attachment B Opening Comments of Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui Housing Committee April 25, 2019 Good Evening, I have just a few quick points. The staff has come back with some new additions and changes, although I do wish we had seen these earlier and had time to review them prior to yesterday, and for the public. I'm still not convinced that would have left fewer questions, and more importantly, this is an evolving process. We still have a lot of specifics to review and details to clarify. And I'm hopeful that in addition to moving the conversation forward, we'll arrive at a place where we have a clearer understanding of these proposals, and we also have a city council order that was voted on by all of us that was brought forward by the Vice Mayor that said the goals of the proposed Overlay are commendable and more information is needed for the members of the Council and the public implications of adopting such an overlay. So there will be a response coming forward to that, and I want to point out that there's no adopting of zoning tonight. There will be a lot of public input before we even get to that point. As my co- chair said, there will be much more time to weigh in, and on the critical pieces we still have remaining questions about. I know that CDD staff are developing graphical illustrations on how the Overlay requirements would be applied to various types of sites. With that said, this is an evolving conversation, so tonight we will hear about these changes and we'll also hear from you guys in terms of what you've done for this process. With that, I'm going to move to open Public Comment. We received many, many written communications (ATTACHMENTS C1-C52) and they're here if you'd like to see them. Thank you.

Attachment Cl Lopez, Donna From: Jonathan Aaron < [email removed]> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 7:29 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Subject: The "100% Affordable Housing Overlay" Dear City Council and City Clerk of Cambridge: This is to say that I am TOTALLY OPPOSED to the so-called 100% Affordable House Overlay. I've already observed with horror the building of massive apartments in the Fresh Pond and Alewife areas, which have contributed to increased traffic congestion and to related air pollution in the area, problems which will only get worse if the "Zoning Overlay" is passed. The impact of this proposal needs to be thoroughly addressed! I will continue to pay close attention to this issue! With the deepest concern, Jonathan Aaron 100 Larch Road, Cambridge, MA 02138 1

Attachment C2 Crane, Paula Shane Baron <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:27 PM To: City Council; Clerk Oppose Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: To Whom It May Concern: My name is Shane Baron and I own and live at 61 Lexington Avenue. I am writing to go on record that I OPPOSE the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay that Cambridge City Council is considering to the zoning laws. Sincerely, Shane Baron

Allachment C3 Crane, Paula Blier, Suzanne < [email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 7:24 PM To: City Council Cc: Crane, Paula; DePasquale, Louie Subject: Please Vote No on advancing the 100% affordable housing overlay as a formal zoning petition Honorable Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux and City Councilors, At the last housing committee meeting we heard many speakers both for and against the proposed Overlay. There were others who spoke as well. One person who really resonated with me was the individual who said: "We only get one chance to get this right; and this Overlay proposal is simply not ready." I urge you to delay sending this Proposal, in its current state, on to be drafted as a formal zoning petition. There are parts of it that are deeply problematic and there remains much to be done before it can be made into law. The current system for affordable housing construction is working very well - including As-of Right, the Planning Board as arbiter of Design, and the use of FAR guidelines. Indeed we are in the middle of substantial growth in luxury housing and commercial development as well. What this Overlay proposal does not address is that huge impact that gentrification from this sustained growth is having on many long term residents in city neighborhoods like Riverside, the Port North Cambridge and elsewhere. The African American population in particular has seen a large decline in recent years. We can't be forcing out more and more people from their historic homes in order to build more Affordable (or Luxury) Housing. The housing list will include these new evictees along with the 19,000 others already on the Affordable housing list. We can and MUST do better than the current Overlay proposal! Please keep this proposal in the committee, work with everyone - including the neighborhood groups - who are deeply interested in bringing more affordable housing to ALL our neighborhoods, and find ways for us to work together on what is clearly a key issue of our time. Let's do this right! Cordially, Suzanne Blier 5 Fuller Place

Atlachment C4 Crane, Paula Lopez, Donna From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:27 PM To: Crane, Paula FW: Re Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: From: Rosemary Booth <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:25 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Re Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, and Councilors Carlone, Kelley, Mallon, Siddiqui, Simmons, Toomey, and Zondervan, We write as homeowners and residents of East Cambridge who are concerned about the proposed Affordable Housing We strongly support, and have written and spoken before the Council to support, effective efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing in the City. We favor approaches such as inclusionary zoning, and needed budget increases. However, we do not support the housing overlay as proposed, and these are some of our questions or concerns: • The overlay proposal as we understand it is open-ended and unlimited regarding the amount of affordable housing to be achieved. That is, what specific amount (percentage of overall Cambridge housing) is the overlay intended to achieve? • The overlay proposal has been described as pertaining to all areas of the City, but it does not seem to require equivalent distribution of affordable housing across all neighborhoods; in other words, the proposal does not seem to aim for relatively even distribution of 100% affordable housing Citywide. • maps in overlay explanatory materials seem to show potential for higher concentrations of new affordable housing in some areas than in others; for example, along Cambridge Street • Under the current zoning, potential buyers of residential property here have a reasonable expectation of what they are buying when they purchase a house (or condo). The proposed overlay with its as of right provison would seem to lessen that predictability, making it harder for a buyer to assess what a neighborhood is apt to look like in the future. That lower predictability would seem to lessen the value of housing in neighborhoods that have more potential for density increases under the affordable housing overlay. • It is not clear to us that the proposed overlay would result in more efficient delivery of affordable housing. Current Cambridge development and zoning processes are complex, and in our experience take considerable effort to understand and affect. The proposed housing overlay seems to take that complexity to a much higher level, without clear concomitant advantages over in-place approaches such as inclusionary zoning. Sincerely, Gerald C. O'Leary and Rosemary Booth

3030 Third Street, Unit 505 Cambridge, MA 02142 2

Alachment C5 Crane, Paula From: Braga, Patrick < [email removed]> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 3:54 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk; Durbin, Wilford Subject: Overlay visuals and by-right approvals Attachments: AHO Form-Based Visuals.pdf Dear City Council and Mayor's Office: Although form-based codes are more successful with illustrations, the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay has been lacking in visuals. In response, I've used an excerpt from the beautiful Somerville Zoning Overhaul as a base to interpret the dimensional requirements of the AHO. Please see the attached file. Frontage standards are a hallmark of contemporary form-based codes, but they have also been missing from the proposed AHO. I think frontage standards would greatly assuage neighbors' concerns about how resulting buildings will look. For reference, see Cincinnati's form-based code section 1703-4, or pages 117-130 in the PDF. (Many "legacy cities" such as Cincinnati, Buffalo, Hartford, and Albany have adopted far more progressive and innovative form-based zoning while Cambridge lags behind with an outdated ordinance.) l'd also like to address a misconception: I have heard many opponents of the Overlay complain that it would allow by- right approvals. Yet Cambridge technically already allows by-right approvals for projects lucky enough to comply with dimensional controls and use regulations. Although many building proposals don't comply with zoning, it's nonetheless possible (even if rare) that a single-family house may be built with just a building permit from Inspectional Services. Neighbors would have limited opportunity to appeal, especially if the project is not located in an existing overlay or Neighborhood Conservation District. I called CDD yesterday and they explained to me that if a project does not seek a variance or special permit, then it can only be appealed if some aspect fails to follow the building code. Why can't the same right be extended to housing meant for our city's teachers, firefighters, police officers, and service workers? Please support the Affordable Housing Overlay. Patrick Braga 11 Everett St. Registered voter in Cambridge Patrick Braga '20 Master in Urban Planning Real Estate and Urban Development Harvard University Graduate School of Design

Attachment C6 Crane, Paula From: Doug Brown <[email removed]> Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:48 PM Sent: To: Crane, Paula FW: Additional Comments on the Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Importance: High Dear members of the Housing Committee, Once again, the City has submitted last minute changes to the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning language, as well as additional FAQs, just hours in advance of a public hearing on the matter. Are you actually trying to be that sneaky, or is this just basic incompetence? Regardless of the cause, it is clearly not helpful to public comment to have new zoning language provided with almost no time allowed to review it. I have looked at the revisions quickly, and though they are small steps in the right direction, it is clear that the zoning language as currently constituted is far from ready to be passed to the full Council. Indeed, the newest changes close several obvious loopholes and make minor corrections to existing text, but otherwise do very little to address the largest concerns expressed by the community to date, including inadequate protections for existing middle-income housing, reduced climate resiliency, extremely excessive density, and a complete lack of community oversight. Even so, it's impossible to provide legitimate and substantive feedback on such a complex document in such a short time. As such, I would request that the Housing Committee refrain from passing this proposal on to the full Council until such time as the public has had time to review and respond to the proposed changes. And going forward, can we also agree to be more timely and transparent? This is an important matter and deserves to be treated as such. Sincerely, Doug Brown 35 Standish Street

Allachment Cr Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:17 PM To: Crane, Paula FW: Proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: From: Patricia Bull <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:54 AM To: City Council < CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna < dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay To: Cambridge City Council cc: Donna Lopez, City Clerk Kindly enter this email into the official record of the City Council. The current system for affordable housing construction is working very well, including the Planning Board as arbiter of design, and the use of FAR guidelines, and that should remain in place. Please, therefore, delay sending this overlay proposal in its current state on to be drafted as a formal zoning petition. Many parts of it are deeply troubling, especially the absence of the right to appeal a project. Since when does the City of Cambridge conclude that the right of appeal is no longer necessary, or indeed, no longer a right? The overlay will have an irreversible effect on the City's tree canopy, not only wiping out much open space, but casting shadows on neighboring buildings and their open spaces. Fifty to 80 feet is simply too high for additional buildings in Cambridge. The time for public input has not even been a month, which is surely too brief a time for such a major undertaking as creating a formal zoning petition. The rights of all Cambridge residents--renters and homeowners alike--need to be respected and listened to. They are the stakeholders in the City of Cambridge, not real estate developers. The City can do much better than the current state of the overlay proposal. Kindly do not send it along to be drafted as a formal zoning petition. Much more time and community input is needed. Patricia Bull 399 Broadway #31 Cambridge MA

Attachment C8 Crane, Paula From: Teresa Cardosi <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 5:04 PM City Council To: Crane, Paula Cc: support 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Dear City Councillors, Please support the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. Much land and property in Cambridge already has been bought by for-profit entities, or people who are able to afford the current housing market. Non-profit organizations and people without the highest of incomes will not be able to purchase or rent in Cambridge until changes are made within zoning. The 100% Affordable Housing Overlay is an opportunity to help keep Cambridge's population diversified by allowing people of all income levels to live here. Non-profit housing simply cannot compete with the developers unless this 100% AHO is passed. Please promote equality in Cambridge by supporting the Overlay. Allow Cambridge to strengthen community ties by intermingling affordable housing in all areas of Cambridge. The newly revised April 24, 2019 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal Consolidated List of Frequently Asked Questions on the CDD website clarifies many areas of concern for both proponents and opponents. I urge people to refer to this to decipher facts from inaccuracies. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Teresa Cardosi 7 Woodrow Wilson Court, H47 Cambridge, MA 02139

Attachment C9 Crane, Paula From: Nicolai Cauchy <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 1:30 PM To: City Council; Clerk; Blier, Suzanne Reiterated opposition to the proposed re-zoning overlay Subject: Dear Councilors, Aides, and Mme. Clerk; I write once more on behalf of all the West Cambridge residents to express stringent opposition to the proposed re- zoning overlay under the UN-VISION Cambridge development plan. We have sent you dozens of written comments and have participated in multiple public hearings, arguing a whole list of reasons for our opposition. Be they ecological, social, or economic, the impacts of such a re-zoning will dramatically reduce the livelihood that most of us worked hard to attain. This would also annihilate many of the characteristics that have made Cambridge so desirable. Thank you for registering our firm opposition to the re-zoning overlay proposed under UN-VISION Cambridge (a more realistic name than that of Envision Cambridge).

Atlachment ClO Crane, Paula From: Nicolai Cauchy < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 1:23 PM To: City Council; Clerk Subject: Reiterated: fervent opposition to the proposed re-zoning overlay Dear Ms. Lopez, Dear Councilors and Aides, In advance of tomorrow's meeting, I hereby reiterate my absolute opposition to the proposed overlay (and associated zoning changes) for the numerous reasons previously cited by me and by most residents who have been informed of the proposal. Regardless of what Boston, neighboring cities, or other municipalities Nationwide may do, the proposal as it stands will destroy our natural environment and the very society for which we have lived here, without in any way counteracting the market forces on the real estate market. Thank you for your consideration. Nicolai Cauchy The Joyfully Green House at 387 Huron (12 years opposed by CDD for a fourth-level greenhouse roof!

Attachment C/l Crane, Paula Christine Chase < [email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:11 AM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Subject: 100 percent Affordable Housing Overlay Dear City Councilors: I am a Cambridge resident, residing at 39A Sherman Street and my family has resided in Cambridge for over 80 years. I am writing in support of the 100 percent affordable housing overlay for the City of Cambridge. Failure to advance the Overlay out of the Housing Committee would be a major setback for low income people wanting to remain housed in Cambridge. I urge you to support the affordable housing overlay for our city. I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Christine Chase Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Allachment C12 Crane, Paula From: Fritz Donovan <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:59 PM To: City Council; Crane, Paula 100% AHO Subject: Dear Council - Just a few weeks ago, in the face of passionate arguments for immediate action, you had the wisdom and courage to defer action on the vital tree-cutting moratorium until you could negotiate the necessary fixes to make it work to everyone's best advantage without unfair hardship to Cambridge residents. When those fixes were made, the ordinance came back for consideration and you passed it by an overwhelming margin. Tonight, you are again being asked to take immediate action on a proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay ordinance that is far more flawed and dangerous than that was. Nobody in this room disputes that we need to promote more affordable housing in Cambridge. But the glaring flaws in the ordinance before you tonight scream for correction before it moves one more step toward passage. the current shortage of affordable housing. But it There is no way Cambridge can completely "solve" can significantly increase the current supply of affordable housing with far greater effect than what the current proposal will produce. To ask the City to spend $20 million dollars a year to generate only 75- 100 new housing units is fiscally crazy - that comes out to some $200,000 to $267,000 per unit. That much money spent wisely would help far more people. And that can be done without wholesale betrayal of the City-wide zoning protections the citizens of Cambridge have relied on for almost 100 years. Developers say they would prefer not to need Planning Board approval for their affordable housing projects. But that exact design protection has made Cambridge the place everybody wants to live. "Advisory-only" input from the Planning Board is joke, and everybody recognizes it. This great city has the talent to develop an ordinance that gets the most housing benefit per dollar spent, produces the largest amount of housing for our needy residents, and does it without wrecking everything else on its way. Please again display your commendable wisdom and courage and sent this badly designed ordinance back for further negotiation. Fritz Donovan 42 Irving Street Law Offices of Francis E. Donovan Immigration Law Cambridge MA 02138 [phone removed] (cellphone) 1

Attachment C13 Crane, Paula From: sonali duggal < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 9:57 AM To: City Council Cc: Clerk; [email removed] Subject: Affordable housing overlay at Housing Committee Hello city council! I'm a Cambridge condo-owner in Inman Square, and wanted to write to you all in full support of the affordable housing overlay. My husband and I hope to make Cambridge our long-term home with our 2 kids, currently 5 and 1.5 years old, and would love to see a denser city that's more welcoming to folks of all income levels. We see luxury condos popping up everywhere, which is fine, but want Cambridge to be open to more than just people who can afford those. Unfortunately we can't make it in person to the meeting tomorrow (see: small children) but wanted to get this out there. Best, Sonali Duggal Danny Hidalgo 23 Murdock St. #2 Cambridge, MA 02139 :

Atlachment C14 Crane, Paula From: Ellen Gallagher < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:49 PM City Council To: Cc: Clerk Subject: Support for Advancement or Affordable Housing Overlay Good afternoon, Given the meeting agenda for this evening's Housing Committee meeting, please accept this email supporting the advancement of the affordable housing overlay as a formal zoning petition. Thank you, Ellen Gallagher 14 Notre Dame Ave #2 Cambridge 02140

Atlachment C15 Crane, Paula From: Elizabeth Gombosi < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:43 PM To: City Council; Crane, Paula Subject: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal Dear Councillors, I strongly object to the proposal being forwarded to the Ordinance Committee at this time. This proposal, as it stands, is not in the best interests of Cambridge citizens. Yes, we need more affordable housing... I doubt you will get any argument from residents. Yes, the situation is critical. But this proposal does not meet the need. It removes citizens' rights. It disregards the environment and green space. It does not improve the quality of life for those most in need, nor for the middle class. In fact, much of the burden will fall on the middle class. It does not deal with serious transportation issues. It does not take into account infrastructure: grocery stores, schools, libraries, social services, etc. It is a "something is better than nothing" proposal and Cambridge can and must do better than that. Elizabeth Gombosi 42 Irving Street

Allachment CIt Crane, Paula tara greco <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 5:25 PM City Council; Clerk To: Cc: tara greco Subject: VOTE NO Affordable Housing Overlay I do NOT support the Affordable Housing Overlay for these (and more) reasons: 1) The Overlay allows up to 50' in residential neighborhoods and up to 80' in business districts. If your single-story home is next to such a project, the result can be a building that is 3-6 stories taller than yours. 2) The overlay will result more older homes being torn down instead of renovating such buildings. Sadly it is much more cost-effective to tear down existing structures than renovate them, and none of the minimal incentives offered by the Overlay are likely to change that math. We already see this every day across the City, as local flippers and out-of-town investors replace older homes with new luxury units. Do you really think that increasing the amount a developer can build by a factor of 5-10x is likely to change that pattern? 3) All affordable projects should still require planning and design review and community input. HOWEVER, in the current proposal project review is "non-binding" (that's the actual term used in the zoning...twice), and the zoning language even goes so far as to say that following two Planning Board hearings, at which the developer can ignore all board and community feedback, "any additional design consultations to review further revisions may occur only at the discretion and on the request of the developer." That's not actually zoning at all. 4) The Overlay reduces open space requirements in residential areas from 40 or 50% to just 30%, then whittles that number down even further by allowing 15% to be devoted to paved parking, plus another 15% to be located on roofs and balconies. The result is likely to be zero actual open space. 5) New projects permitted by the Overlay are unlikely to have room for either front gardens or backyards. In front, properties are not required to be setback any further than the current structure or the existing structures on either side, while in the back, yards can be occupied with paved car parking, enclosed bike parking, driveways, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, fire escapes, steps, porches, electrical equipment, decks, sheds, storage lockers, and any other "appurtenant structures," all of which are exempt from setback requirements. And in all cases, the zoning ignores setback rules entirely in cases where the property's base zoning establishes a less restrictive requirement. 6) The overlay will result in buildings extending from lot line to lot line. If a project is in a zoning district that allows zero setbacks as most local business districts do, then the Overlay would allow that base zoning to continue. The result would indeed be lot line to lot line structures, even when such projects abut existing small homes in residential districts. 7) nonprofit and for-profit developers who build affordable housing get into the affordable housing business to make money. The claim that for-profit developers are not interested in profits is almost laughable. Under current 40B regulations, all developers are entitled to a 20% profit margin on any affordable housing they build. The bigger the project, the bigger that 20% share becomes. It seems pretty clear to me why, given this reality, developers and the political action committees that they fund would of course like to see density limits relaxed and much larger buildings permitted by-right. 8) The range of incomes: There is a big difference between REQUIRING and ALLOWING something to be built. Nothing in the Overlay language REQUIRES the building of housing for a range of incomes. The language requires that at least 80% of all new units are designated for low income residents earning up to 80% of the average regional income. It then 1

ALLOWS (but does NOT require) that the other 20% be allocated to residents earning up to 100% of average income. That leaves middle-income residents making slightly less than an average income fighting for the few if any middle- income units likely to be created (we currently have just 15 such middle-income units in a total portfolio of more than 8000 affordable units), while any middle-income residents earning even slightly more than average are left out entirely. And by creating much greater development potential on every block across the entire City, the Overlay is likely to displace many current middle-income renters as their current homes are sold to affordable developers or, worse, real estate speculators. In the end, the proposed Overlay won't fix the housing affordability issues faced by middle-income families, simply because the proposed zoning language contains no actual requirements to create or protect such middle-income and family units. Indeed, we may actually make these issues much worse. 9) Cambridge student population is growing (not shrinking as many claim) 2

Allachment C17 Lopez, Donna From: Ann Hall <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 9:53 AM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: Cambridge Affordable Housing Dear City Councilors, The discussions about the Affordable Housing Overlay has prompted me to write with a concern I have had for some time about renovations and construction in Cambridge. As my aging neighbors have left the area or passed away, I have watched their single family homes be purchased and carved up into multi-unit buildings, with additional multi-unit buildings added in their backyards for good measure. No one but the wealthy can purchase these units. Because parking is limited at these residences, more cars are brought into the neighborhood than on-street parking can sustain (and by necessity, l am assuming, are increasing street traffic in the city). The green spaces that could once filter rainwater are gone, either covered by a structure or paved over for precious parking spaces. There is no room for trees or other greenery. With more wealthy people moving into Cambridge, no wonder the the median income continues to rise. I don't know whether this is a loophole in the building code, but it really needs to stop. Or these projects need to include affordable or middle-income housing. Thanks for reading and many thanks for all you do, Ann Hall Columbia Street

Attachment C18 Lopez, Donna From: Antony Herrey < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 4:51 PM To: Clerk "The 100% Affordable Housing Overlay" Subject: Ladies and Gentlemen, Our family has lived in our house in an important historic district in Cambridge for almost four decades, and we have just learned that a radical new proposal--"The 100% Affordable Housing Overlay"--is being seriously considered by the City of Cambridge and may be passed into law. We are profoundly concerned by what we understand this radical proposal may do to destroy the many marvelous historical characteristics of Cambridge that make our neighborhoods so attractive and desirable. The permanently harmful effects this change could impose on our city would be a disaster, and we urge in the strongest terms that this proposal be most carefully analyzed, explained, discussed, and thoughtfully considered before enacting any part of into law. All citizens must be enabled to understand the consequences for life in Cambridge that this new zoning law would cause. Please do not rush into such radical new zoning. It is essential that this new proposal and its likely consequences be carefully explained to all citizens so they can understand what is being proposed and what the effects will be. Sincerely, Antony Herrey 150 Brattle Street Cambridge, MA 02138 [phone removed]

Allachment (19 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:41 PM Crane, Paula To: Subject: FW: 100%-Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay - CDD - City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. NO to overlay proposal. From: Judy Johnson <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:40 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna < dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: 100%-Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay - CDD - City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. NO to overlay proposal. To the City Council: Re: Proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Giving 100% control to developer's for city planning is a terrible, terrible idea. I am concerned about the intent of the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay by the Housing Committee because it will take away everyone's right to appeal a project, but seemingly will not result in any more affordable housing than is now possible. Please delay sending this overlay proposal, in its current state, on to be drafted as a formal zoning petition. Many residents and experts have pointed out that there are parts of it that are deeply problematic and have recommended there remains much to be done before it can be made into law. The current system for affordable housing construction is working very well--including the Planning Board as arbiter of Design, and the use of FAR guidelines. What this Overlay proposal does not address is the huge impact that gentrification from sustained growth is having on many long term residents in city neighborhoods like Riverside, the Port, North Cambridge, and Cambridgeport. Yet these neighborhoods each, now, have a large share of the city's affordable housing. It is obvious that the proposed affordable housing overlay will not make it feasible for affordable projects to be built in the more affluent neighborhoods of Cambridge. We can't be tearing down historic homes in order to build more Affordable Housing and forcing out more and more people from their homes. Another concern is the effect the overlay could have on the city's tree canopy. The 13 proposed exceptions would wipe away most open space, if not all in some circumstances. Not only will trees be destroyed as houses are torn down to build the maximum units in the space available, but the leftover open space will not be enough for a tree to grow and will cast shadows on neighbors' gardens thus causing the decline of the greenery in those gardens.

Allachment C20 We can and must do better than the current Overlay proposal. Please keep this proposal in the housing committee, work with everyone - including the neighborhood groups - who are deeply interested in bringing more affordable housing to ALL our neighborhoods, and find ways for us to work together on what is clearly a key issue of our time. Judy Johnson 55 Antrim Street Please include this in the official city council record. 2

Atlachment C21 Crane, Paula From: Stephen Kaiser < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 9:57 AM Crane, Paula To: Subject: WORD TO BE DONE Before Deciding on a Zoning Recommendation for Affordable Housing Attachments: 2019-04-24 S-Kaiser -- Affordable Housing Work-To-Do pdf To : Paula Crane, Office of the City Clerk From Stephen Kaiser Attached is my "Affordable Housing: Work to Do for Effective Progress," for the April 25 Housing Committee meeting, in the form of my April 24 letter to the City Council and the City Manager. The document includes ten items of remaing work to be done before any consideration should be given to sending a zoning recommendation to the Ordinance Committee. Thank you. :

Page 1 April 24, 2019 Stephen H. Kaiser 191 Hamilton St. Cambridge Mass. 02189 To : The Cambridge City Manager and City Council From : Stephen H. Kaiser Affordable Housing : Work to Do for Effective Progress Extensive discussions over Citywide Affordable Housing zoning issues have identified several unresolved issues to date. These include : Failure to release - even in draft form - the Final report of the Envision Cambridge comprehensive planning process. This is the plan upon which zoning changes should be based. Where is the report? Why hasn't it been released? What is the schedule for its release to the public? B The March 27 version of zoning language for Overlay Affordable Housing has been identified as a draft discussion document. There has been no public discussion of revisions or even a schedule for such revisions. C From the Envision Working Group to the current discussions before the City Housing Housing Committee, the singular driving focus has been to pass city-wide overlay zoning with very large city subsidies, with no consideration for any alternative approaches to rezoning and financing. Alternatives must be discussed. Oblique references have been made to "form-based" zoning or codes, as a more modern approach to zoning. Major alleged "reforms" to zoning are implied. Other implied or stated goals have included "streamlining" the process to build housing "As-Of-Right" in a way that removes current procedures for special permits, design review and court appeals. No explanation has been offered to the public to describe what "form-based" means. The Council needs to understand the basic elements of "form-based" zoning and what elements of such codes are included in the proposed Overlay zoning.

Page 2 April 24, 2019 The scale of the zoning changes is not incremental or trivial. Overlay zoning changes are radical and indeed revolutionary. Calculations by citizens have indicated that the combination of increased height, removal of FAR limits, reduced setbacks and other zoning changes have the potential to increase site FARs by a factor of five to ten ... or more. Such changes in zoning are massive and require thoughtful deliberation. The choice of city-wide general application of the zoning changes does not allow for staging of incremental steps to find out how the zoning would work in individual neighborhoods or selected locations. For example, the initial zoning change could have been applied only to corridors, such as Mass Avenue, or to the Alewife Quadrangle. These would be areas of the least controversy and the greatest opportunity for building new housing quickly. By going City-wide, the advocates have provided a magnet for all controversies and factions to speak in opposition to a vital idea -- affordable housing -- and have rigidly politicized a key social issue. The sequestering and poor quality of information about the plan, the overlay zoning, and the costs of a subsidy program have made a challenging task virtually impossible to resolve amicably. A new plan is needed that applies to a limited number of sites and corridors, with the potential for rapid housing progress. This revolutionary impact on zoning applied city-wide would affect all areas of the city in significant ways, both for development potential and budget demands. It could generate a sequence of future zoning changes to undo any mistakes already made. If the housing program fails to produce new units, even more changes could be proposed to achieve true housing affordability. When tensions and disputes arise because of the new zoning, they would spring up city-wide, rather than in limited locations. Our political system would be strained to deal with such radical change. A new zoning petition should be offered, with a focus on corridors, and less radical growth potential. Financial assessments have not been released by City officials, even though it appears that CDD has prepared useful studies of program costs and the extent of subsidies. The City budget could be stressed, if proper taxation and other fund-raising cannot be obtained to support the subsidies. The City Manager should be asked to present financial information on the subsidy program in public session before the City Council.

Page 3 April 24, 2019 The opposite consequence from revolutionary change is also possible, especially when financial constraints become evident. If the number of 100% affordable units is only in the range of 50-60 units per year, the program could prove to be inadequate and even inconsequential in dealing with the true housing needs of Cambridge. The housing challenge and the City's response could be completely mismatched. If the Affordable housing initiative is'a failure, much time and money would be expended for little positive achievement. City Hall should investigate the possibility that the current 100% Affordable Housing zoning would be a functional disappointment, if not an outright flop. No effort appears to have been made by City officials to determine the legality and lawfulness of the zoning/subsidy proposal. Upzoning has been challenged in past years as a violation of the State Constitution, in particular Article 7 of the Declaration of Rights of the State Constitution. Changes could be needed to several sections of MGL Chapter 40A (especially in the area of purpose and its duplicated statements in section 1.30 of the CZO). If the program proves to be an excessive burden on the city budget, have city officials failed in their fiduciary responsibility to the citizens to manage the city in a sound financial and economic manner? The Manager should initiate such a legal inquiry, with the aid of outside counsel if needed. Of these ten unresolved issues, I hope that by April 25 City Hall will have achieved full resolution of item above. Sincerely, sent tann Stephen H. Kaiser

Crane, Paula Allachment C2z From: Young Kim <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 8:17 AM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul; Simmons, Denise; Devereux, Jan; Mallon, Alanna; Toomey, Tim Cc: McGovern, Marc; DePasquale, Louie; Kelley, Craig; Zondervan, Quinton; Carlone, Dennis; Crane, Paula; Lopez, Donna; Farooq, Iram; Roberts, Jeffrey; Mike Johnston Subject: April 25 Housing Committee Hearing Comments Dear Housing Committee Members, On March 28 hearing, I found the two minutes to make my comments awfully short, especially when the presentation package was not available early enough. Once again, I will not be able to attend the upcoming Housing Committee (Committee) hearing on April 25 and therefore I respectfully submit my comments in writing. I apologize in advance for this lengthy email and beg your indulgence in hearing me out. Recently I found out that Mr. Michael J. Johnston, Executive Director of Cambridge Housing Authority, had sent email to "over 19,000 applicants for affordable housing in Cambridge" prior to March 5, 2019 Committee hearing urging them to "(p)lease if you are able join us to show your support at tonight's city council housing committee meeting and express your support for A city-wide 100% affordable housing overlay $20 million a year in city funds for affordable housing over the next 5 years." I apologize to Mr. Johnston if I have taken this out of context but this illustrates what is wrong with the debate going on at the Committee hearings on the city-wide 100% Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zoning amendment. There was no agenda posted for March 5 hearing but the agenda for March 20 and 28 meetings clearly stated "(t)he Housing Committee shall meet to continue discussions on the Affordable Housing Overlay District". . The agenda did not say that the Committee shall meet to continue discussions on the need of affordable housing. This is the crucial difference. Article 1.30, Purpose, Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge clearly states that the purpose of this Ordinance "shall be ... to lessen congestion in the streets;... to provide adequate light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to encourage housing for persons of all income levels; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, ..., open space...; to conserve the value of land and buildings, ..; to encourage the most rational use of land throughout the city, including... the protection of residential neighborhoods from incompatible activities and including the consideration of plans and policies, if any, adopted by the Cambridge Planning Board, and to preserve and increase the amenities of the City." "Shall" is a requirement and therefore. the purpose of the Committee hearings should and must be to debate whether the CDD's zoning language of the proposed AHO District meets the stated requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, NOT whether the City needs more affordable housing. I urge Co-chairs Councillor Simmons and Councillor Siddiqui to reiterate the purpose of the hearing at the upcoming April 25 hearing and limit the discussions to the merits of the proposed zoning amendment, not the need for affordable housing. As of this writing, no agenda or agenda package have been posted on the Open Meetings Portal. In addition, the CDD's website on the 100% AHO still shows Draft Text for Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay (March 2019) that the City staff had prepared for discussion at the March 28 hearing. It is hard to believe there hasn't been any change since that meeting, not even as a result of City Council's Housing Round-Table on April 9. In addition, I have asked many times for case studies with contextual rendering of potential 100% affordable housing projects in various residential zones but to date I have not seen any such document. If any new

material is to be posted before the April 25 meeting, public will not have adequate time to prepare informed comments. On a very significant zoning amendment such as this, material to be discussed must be provide well in advance with proper document control to show changes from the previous versions. Effect of any zoning amendment must be quantifiable and enforceable. The proposed form-based zoning amendment does not allow either. Furthermore, not allowing community involvement in the design review process violates abutter's due process to appeal. "Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit" will not address the on-street parking impact as car ownership can't be mandated nor enforced. Its impact on the neighborhood will be difficult to assess not knowing the density of a development. As Boston Globe reported (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/18/cambridge-wanted-big-drop-car-ownership-that-hasn-exactly- happened/sBu3TbWIBQLi5Nl000L6AM/story.html), (t)he city (of Cambridge) appears all but certain to fall short of its 2020 goal of reducing the ratio of cars owned by Cambridge residents by 15 percent from 1990 levels. The target, set in 2014, was to lower ownership to about 0.8 cars per household, but with about a year left on the clock, Cambridge is less than halfway there." Proposed amendment should not duplicate affordable housing procedures (eligibility, continued verification of eligibility etc.) - rather it should reference currently existing procedures. Furthermore, any new regulations must be put in place and approved by the City Solicitor before finalizing the 100% AHO zoning amendment. Has CDD assessed its increased workload to administer the affordable housing requirements? Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal FAQ - Expanded (March 2019) still states that "any developer - public, non-profit, or private - building 100%-affordable housing would be able to utilize the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning." What will prevent for-profit developers from taking advantage of this Overlay, other than deed restrictions, to make windfall profit using scarce tax payer funded subsidies? Please direct CDD to provide case study of 100% affordable housing project (perhaps the 40-unit Frost Terrace) by a for-profit developer. Thank you for your attention and consideration, Respectfully yours, Young Kim, 17 Norris Street

Crane, Paula Atlachment C23 Masato Kocberber <[email removed] > From: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 2:46 PM Clerk To: Fwd: Support for affordable housing overlay Subject: I wrote the previous emails and was told to forward the email to this address if I wanted it to be part of the record. Thanks, Masato Kocberber -- Forwarded message --- From: Masato Kocberber < [email removed]> Date: Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 1:12 PM Subject: Support for affordable housing overlay To: <citycouncil@cambridgema.gov> Dear City Councilors The purpose of this email is to show my support for the affordable housing overlay. I write this as a privileged person, though I suppose I am not so privileged as to have the time to attend the city council meetings and say this in person. I am privileged in that I get to live here no matter what you decide, but that is not true of everyone. The reason there is a housing crisis is because people want to live here. They come, often, because the institutions in our city allow them to feel that they can really change the world. The residents of Cambridge act as role models that we hope inspire each other to even greater things. The city is also committed to diversity and education. The children of these visionaries will go on to attend school with those who were not born as lucky. Both sets of children will be better for it, to learn and grow from the others' life experiences. I often wonder how the world would be different if someone like Mark Zuckerberg ever attended public school, so that he would have learned to sympathize with every day people. I support the affordable housing overlay all sorts of technical reasons that would be true in any city (it's good for the climate to live densely, etc. But I mostly support it because allowing as many people to live in our city is a good thing for the world. That the most impactful thing we can do for humanity is allow as many people as possible to live among those who wish to change the world. Masato Kocberber Cambridgeport Resident

attachment (24 Crane, Paula From: Derek Kopon < [email removed]> Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:02 PM Sent: Crane, Paula; Clerk To: Cc: City Council Public comment Subject: Dear Ms. Crane, Below are my comments from the housing committee meeting for the public record. Thank you, Derek Kopon In previous meetings, members of the public and several councillors have requested visual displays of housing developments representative of those that would be developed under the affordable housing overlay. The posters that were displayed at the housing committee this evening were misleading, since they were almost entirely photographs of 2.5 story buildings that meet all current zoning laws. The relevant visual displays would be 4-story 50-foot tall buildings with reduced setbacks positioned in neighborhoods with 2-story homes. That is what this zoning would allow/incentivize, so that is what should be displayed. I also note to the council that there has been virtually no discussion of the massive financial windfall that this policy would give to for-profit developers. Some of the for-profit developers who would directly financially benefit from this policy have submitted comment to the public record in favor of the overlay on ostensibly altruistic pretenses. A number of councilors and our Mayor spoke this evening at length about the presumed value to our community of the affordable housing overlay. Unfortunately, the validity of their statements was undermined by the fact that the majority of these councilors take large amounts of money from the for-profit developers who will directly benefit from this policy.

Attachment C25 Crane, Paula From: Tina Lieu <[email removed]> Thursday, April 25, 2019 10:42 AM Sent: To: City Council Clerk Cc: I support the proposed 100 percent Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Dear City Councilors, I am unable to attend the meeting tonight, but I would like to register my support for the affordable housing overlay. I think it will be a key step towards preserving the diversity of the city as well as diversifying the populations living in the various Cambridge neighborhoods. I am so glad that the city is taking concrete action on a very important and urgent issue. I think having diverse populations in =every= neighborhood will also be a means of increasing cross-racial relationships within the city and increasing racial equity in our schools. I have one child who attends Peabody and one who attends Fletcher Maynard and just as one example, the disparity of the funds raised by the parents group at each school is truly shocking, but I believe it is entirely due to the mix or lack of mix of socio-economic incomes of the populations. I ask the housing committee to please support this zoning change. Sincerely, Tina Lieu 37 Huron Ave.

Atlachment (26 Crane, Paula Christopher Mackin <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 2:43 PM City Council; Crane, Paula; DePasquale, Louie To: Cc: Blier, Suzanne Subiect: Mackin to Council-Housing Committee and City Manager - Testimony for April 25, 2019 Hearing Attachments: Mackin-Cambridge Housing Committee Testimony-042519.docx Cambridge Officials: Please find my testimony for this evening's Housing Committee pasted below and attached as an MS Word file. I trust you all have learned about developments in Arlington last evening. News pasted below in the event you have not. Regards, Chris Mackin To: Cambridge Housing Committee From: Christopher Mackin, 48 JFK Street Date: April 25, 2019 In previous testimony to this Committee I made reference to the dynamics of this debate. In particular of a dynamic of moral competition that has been launched by supporters of the Overlay which they assert over those who oppose some or all of the Overlay. A more precise term for the moral competition that has been launched is moral appropriation. Appropriation is the claim that one side, the Overlay side, has a monopoly on virtue. They own it and resist claims that others might make as so much selfish noise about matters such as 'as of right' procedures that guarantee property owners a voice and god forbid, trees. If only it was that simple. And if only those ideas cited were the only ideas we cared about. Instead, the motley crew of Overlay opponents from the neighborhoods are the same people who have put forward a slew of ideas that would increase affordable housing more quickly and clearly than those on the other side. • Is the other side talking about helping people who are being evicted from apartments by the dynamics of development yesterday and today? Is the other side talking about ending single family zoning so as to encourage more naturally affordable housing units in all neighborhoods of this City? • Is the other side taking an inventory of the various public properties upon which housing can be constructed tomorrow? The irony in all of this is that instead of pressuring their elected leaders to directly take responsibility for affordable housing, Overlay supporters have "outsourced" the hard work to the development community. They will build, build, build and all will be well. 1

The effort to appropriate the moral high ground in this debate is clever. It almost works. But at the end of the day it fails. It is too simple as are these pejorative and divisive labels of NIMBY and YIMBY. The right way forward is not the 100% affordable housing overlay zoning petition before you tonight. The right way forward is a collection of ideas to protect vulnerable citizens, to extend and expand existing affordable housing stock, to amend zoning laws without eliminating them and yes to build where building makes sense on terms that are best for citizens, for residents first and for developers second. *****: *** Suzanne Preston Blier 3 hrs • BEST NEWS OF THE DAY! Hats off to Rosalind Shaw and the activists in Arlington, Ma. who won a major victory last night against the proposed upzoning in her city. Here is what she just posted " Congratulations to our neighborhood group, Arlington Residents for Responsible Redevelopment! In last night's Town Meeting Arlington's upzoning proposal was withdrawn when it became clear that it wouldn't pass. Now we need to pursue better ways of increasing affordable housing. Left/top: sample of five-story behemoths that upzoning would have enabled. Right/bottom: East Arlington." Rosalind (a friend, an Africanist, and an anthropologist at Tufts) has been watching our activism in Cambridge and has done amazing work there. Hats off! Hope this also inspires some here to keep the Overlay in Committee so we can get it H/T Nicola A Williams Marilee Boyd Meyer Christopher Mackin Caroline JamesCaroline Bruzelius Doug Brown Marie Elena Saccoccio Quinton Zondervan|an Devereux Dan Totten Mike Connolly Nadeem MazenNancy Ryan Nancy Wareck -- Chris Christopher Mackin Ownership Associates, Inc. 17 Story Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.ownershipassociates.com Tel.: [phone removed] Cell: [phone removed] Skype: ChrisMackin 2

Attachment C27 Crane, Paula From: Elysse Magnotto-Cleary <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:20 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: AHO Proposal - support Subject: Good afternoon, Given the meeting agenda for this evening's Housing Committee meeting, please accept this email supporting the advancement of the affordable housing overlay as a formal zoning petition. Thank you, Elysse Magnotto-Cleary 16A Gerry Street, Cambridge

Attachment (28 Crane, Paula Walt Maling <[email removed]> From: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 4:33 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal I am opposed to the affordable housing overlay proposal. I am opposed to any zoning changes to increase residential density. I am also opposed to any attempts to reintroduce rent control. Walter Maling 33 Lexington Avenue Cambridge

Atlachment (29 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 8:38 AM Crane, Paula To: FW: Proposed Overlay Zoning Subject: From: Cindy Marsh <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 5:23 PM To: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Proposed Overlay Zoning For the Official Record of the City Council The Cambridge City Council City Hall 795 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 RE: Housing Committee Meeting, 3/20/19 - Proposed Overlay Zoning To the Honorable City Council: I write today to voice my concern regarding some shortcomings of the proposed city-wide overlay zoning ordinance for 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. No doubt there is a great need for more affordable housing, but I would prefer to see comprehensible housing policy that does not include some of the restrictive zoning language in the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. It is my opinion that the City Council and the CDD have spent too much time on this market- driven Overlay Proposal that relies on adding even more development rather than developing a comprehensive housing policy for reducing housing costs for everyone. What are the possible impacts of the Affordable Housing Overlay Proposal?

1) There has been no explanation of the cost-benefit ratio of adding taxpayer funds to bid in the open market for property. History shows that adding more money to scarce resources drives property costs up. Interestingly, by the CDD's own admission, that will produce very little units, e.g., less than 100 for $20 million. It doesn't seem to be a good Return On Investment. 2) The City Manager has not given thought to the impact of spending more money on income restricted housing like this. If Cambridge decides to spend more on City-run housing programs they might be forced to raise taxes. That likely would cause even more displacement of residents who are currently vulnerable to higher tax rates. Cambridge has used low tax rates to maintain a diverse community for decades 3) The use of for-profit developers in this project and the access to the entire City of Cambridge with fewer restrictions is a very slippery slope. This market-driven plan only benefits developers and relies on building more in our already dense city. If this zoning law gets passed and has a negative impact on the City's historically low tax base, it would then require a 2/3s vote to repeal. Just like entitlements, politicians are reluctant to vote to end zoning laws. 4) This proposal would essentially encourage teardowns because developers need to keep costs down and adding to existing residential properties is more costly. Therefore, it would be necessary to raise the number of units per property in order to meet financial requirements. It could result in more smaller housing units. In addition, it appears that this would not be very effective for preserving the environment or the character of neighborhoods. 5) The proposal provides no language stating requirements for two- or three-bedroom units, which are conducive in order to house families. This is important especially for any new projects in neighborhood buildings. 6) The density allowed by this form-based zoning will be completely overwhelming in small neighborhoods and should be adjusted to better reflect corridors vs. neighborhoods. More backlot space should be reserved for the addition of tree canopy and open space. Trees and more than 15% open space should be required for all structures. 7) Removing the Planning Board and neighborhood input is dangerous and could result in very cheaply made ugly and out-of-scale buildings. There need to be more specifics on design and material guidelines, but concrete, specific language is missing. 8) Removing Parking requirements puts more pressure on existing neighborhoods, especially those that are far from public transit. Yours truly, Cindy Marsh Hugh MacNeil 16 Laurel Street Cambridge, MA cc: Donna Lopez., City Clerk, dlopez@cambridgema.gov 2

Attachment (38 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 8:39 AM Crane, Paula To: FW: In support of the Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: From: Risa Mednick <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 7:02 PM To: Siddiqui, Sumbul <ssiddiqui@cambridgema.gov›; City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov>; Simmons, Denise <dsimmons@cambridgema.gov> Subject: In support of the Affordable Housing Overlay Dear Co-Chairs Siddiqui and Simmons, Members of the Housing Committee, and the Honorable City Council: I write in support of the Affordable Housing Overlay and urge the Council to act swiftly to advance the process that will lead to its eventual implementation. The Affordable Housing Overlay is not the one single solution to the enormous housing crisis that Cambridge, the region, and much of the country is facing. It is a positive means of creating some affordable housing throughout the city. It is a way of making inroads toward a more inclusive community. It is a public policy tool that moves us toward greater equity in a time of grotesque and inescapable inequities. In Cambridge, we can welcome new neighbors without displacing existing families. We can play to our strengths and use resources in new ways. This whole community and its elected and municipal leaders must act boldly and responsibly with a just and moral vision to systemically re-build and sustain a healthy, thriving community. I urge you to advance this process to the ordinance committee. Sincerely, 1

Risa Mednick 20 Maple Ave, Unit C Cambridge MA 02139 [email removed] Risa Mednick Organizational Development Consultant [email removed] [phone removed] 2

Atlachment (31 A new resident from New York in LBJ affordable apartments, Cambridgeport, recently applied and received Cambridge housing at his friend's suggestion. How many of those 19,000 are from out of state? Are qualified? A Councilor's aide purportedly got his girlfriend an affordable housing unit, jumping the line. If the price of affordable housing production is so expensive, why can't that money be used to keep people in their units with a goal of home ownership or partnership with the city— that when the tenants move, the property reverts to the city? By not looking into how to keep people here, and as property becomes market-rate, we are perpetuating the cycle that is not fixable. You are bailing a leaky boat without patching the leaks first in order to stay afloat. This approach to overall zoning is possibly anti-democratic and to have CDD champion just three zones, supported by private interest groups, is lazy and irresponsible. A prominent development lawyer argued he was proud of getting offices/ labs into Cambridge making it a tech center in the world. But he "balanced it" with housing. Really? A tech company brings in 2000 new employees. Who is responsible for their housing? Many proponents of this overlay are MIT students who feel entitled to city affordable housing. This is an MIT problem—not a Cambridge problem. MIT has turned into a Real Estate mogul and has ignored the grand scale of their contribution to this city-wide dilemma. Councilors, please fix the current problems contributing to this issue. People are manipulating the system including the very people charged with its oversight. The city has the power. The officials working for the city have the power. Yet it is left to the residents to point out the inconsistencies, and the path of least resistance taken ignoring a better and more equitable solution that everyone can live with. This particular 100% Affordable Housing Overlay plan won't work, is too expensive, is not fair and will not cure the problems of housing unless other factors are determined first. It is not ready to advance to the Ordinance Committee. Marilee Meyer 10 Dana St #404 [email removed] [phone removed]

Atlachment C32 Crane, Paula From: Stephen Michaels < [email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 9:25 AM To: McGovern, Marc; Toomey, Tim; Siddiqui, Sumbul; Zondervan, Quinton; Mallon, Alanna; Simmons, Denise; Carlone, Dennis; Devereux, Jan Cc: City Clerk Subject: Amendment to Noise Ordinance banning leaf blowers Dear City Council Members: I am a 20-year Cambridge resident living at 82 Tremont Street, Apt. 2. Through the landscaping company that our condominium association employs to maintain our lawn and gardens, Kosko Landscaping, I have become aware that, on May 1, the City Council will be considering the adoption of an amendment to the City's Noise Ordinance that will ban all use of leaf blowers in the city. I am concerned that the passage of this amendment will significantly increase the amount of labor and time required to maintain even small yards such as our condo association's, thereby increasing the costs our small (4 unit) association pays each year to keep our lawn and garden neat and attractive. I would like to note that our lot is one of only three properties on our block of Tremont Street (between Cambridge and Hampshire Streets) with lawn and garden planted with flowers and flowering shrubs visible from the street, and thus contributes to the attractiveness and value of our neighborhood when it is well-maintained. I have reviewed the current Noise Ordinance sections pertaining to leaf blowers, which are already extremely restrictive as to hours of operation, noise levels, permitting, and where and how blowers may be used. While I understand the concerns about noise and dust, I firmly believe the current restrictions are adequately balanced between the needs and rights of homeowners whose properties require maintenance using leaf blowers and the concerns of abutters. The current Ordinance even notes the City's own need to use leaf blowers in its parks and other public spaces. Thus I am opposed to this complete ban on leaf blowers and urge you to retain the current ordinance as is, and please vote against adopting this ban. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stephen L. Michaels Stephen L. Michaels 82 Tremont St., Apt. 2 Cambridge, MA 02139 USA [email removed]

Atlachment 33 Crane, Paula Heather Moulton <[email removed] > From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 8:43 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: Affordable housing overlay We are residents of 128 Brattle Street in Cambridge. We are OPPOSED to the Affordable housing overlay. Cambridge has a decent track record in Affordable housing, but find that this plan is problematical and that it dwarfs the issues you are attempting to resolve. Eben and Heather Moulton

Atlachment C34 Lopez, Donna From: [email removed] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 7:26 PM To: Clerk Opposition to 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. While the idea behind this proposal is a worthy one, I believe this overlay will have a negative impact on Cambridge. In particular, the waiving of setback restrictions, the removal of input from Planning Boards and from neighborhoods, and the potential for increasing heights and densities of building all have serious implications for the look, feel and quality of life for Cambridge residents. As Cambridge has one of the highest rates of affordable housing in Massachusetts we have already done our fare share. Please don't let our City become overbuilt in ways that cannot be undone and do not take into consideration the enormous thoughtful work that has been done to preserve the historic nature of much of our city. I hope that as City Councillors you will consider the concerns of your constituency in this matter. Caroline Mortimer 200 Brattle Street Cambridge

Attachment C35 Crane, Paula From: Francis Neczypor <[email removed]> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 6:44 PM Clerk To: Cc: Francis Neczypor Subject: FW: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay To City Clerk, Cambridge Ma. I am copying a letter that I have sent to the Cambridge City Council registering my opposition to the adoption of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. Francis M Neczypor From: Francis Neczypor <[email removed]> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 6:42 PM To: citycouncil@cambridema.gov Cc: 'Francis Neczypor' <[email removed]> Subject: RE: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay To the Cambridge City Council My name is Francis Neczypor and I have been a resident of Cambridge for 39 years. I currently own two single family homes in Cambridge. The purchase of the second home was made to avoid developer/buyers from the eventual demolition of the property to erect a larger structure contrary to the neighborhood condition. I will not repeat the comments and objections that you have already heard such as the Fresh Pond overbuilding at Vox and Discovery Park. I will also not repeat the fact that traffic from BBN, Shady Hill, Mount Auburn Hospital, Fresh Pond Development and the Route 2 Corridor have impacted the quality of life in Cambridge. And finally, I will not repeat the obvious impact of the recent West Cambridge expansions of Harvard, Mt Auburn Hospital and the previous mentioned expansions on the infra structure of the city. However, whereas the ideal of an increase to affordable housing is noble, the city is no longer designed to accommodate that offering as proposed by the City Council. The Zoning laws as currently enacted, as well as the Cambridge Historic Society review of new or changed construction were designed to insure that property holders could rely on the law as a standard to plan and rely upon. To change those laws would imply that they failed in their charter. I would suggest that if additional housing is needed that the current laws be followed unless it is deemed that they are either inappropriate, unbalanced or discriminatory. I would also suggest that the city has already allowed development to continue without regard to the infra structure and quality of life of the existing residents. Allowing "developers" to adopt new rules is contrary to everything that the existing standards represent. It seems difficult to understand how current residents need to request permission and are subject to review for merely adding a window, for example, but the City Council proposal would allow a developer to ignore existing statutes to erect higher and denser structures. Rather than continue the recitation of all the inequities I will close with the following. I haye been a resident and a property owner in Cambridge for 4 decades. I have followed the zoning rules to insure compliance with what the community has deemed appropriate. I reject the notion that the City Council has been installed to over rule laws that have been in place and that have been successful. I also reject the concept that building larger and denser housing will 1

benefit the quality of life of the current Cambridge residents. As such, I strongly oppose the "100% Affordable Housing Overlay" for all the reasons I have discussed. Sincerely, Francis Neczypor, property owner; 114 Foster Street 9 Doane Street 2

Atachment 36 Crane, Paula From: Carol O'Hare <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:51 PM To: Crane, Paula Housing Committee: More on Affordable Housing Overlay, 4/25/19, 6 p.m. Subject: Attachments: Zoning-AffordableHousingOverlayCambr Day art 19 04 22 full-CBO supp-email HousingCommittee190425.doc Apologies. I will bring a copy for the official record. Carol From: Carol O'Hare [mailto:[email removed]] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 3:29 PM To: Cambridge City Council Cc: 'DePasquale, Louie'; 'Iram Farooq'; 'Roberts, Jeffrey; 'ccotter@cambridgema.gov' Subject: Housing Committee: More on Affordable Housing Overlay, 4/25/19, 6 p.m. Dear Councillors Simmons and Siddiqui, Co-Chairs, and Housing Committee Members: Lots of residents have been asking lots of legitimate questions, raising lots of concerns and wondering about a wide range of legitimate and varied effects and benefits of CDD's marketing of the Overlay proposal that resulted from the costly Envision process. I've already raised some myself. Now, I'll just say this: 1. I wasn't involved in the 4/22/19 Cambridge Day letter addressing ABC's 10 so-called "Myths." I do believe they wrote it in good faith and with laudable goals and that they, too, are "welcoming, compassionate and big-hearted," as Councillor Simmons suggested in her April 16 introduction that we should all be when considering affordable housing options. For efficiency, I've used their letter for my own comments. See Attachment. 2. Do please obtain, publicize, review and consider the information sought by and reactions to your unanimously sponsored and adopted Policy Order 3 POR (2019 #113), 4/1/19. https://tinyurl.com/y2mf2zk2 3. Do please remember what | wrote in my 4/1 email: Yet, one mega-cause of Cambridge's housing shortage for low- and middle-income people is the "discretionary" zoning and other approvals regularly issued for mega-projects like MITIMCo's at Volpe, others in Kendall Sq. and possibly New England Development's at CambridgeSide Galleria and Leggat McCall's court house + garage/via discretionary LDA. Employees at those built facilities will out-earn and, therefore, bump many Cambridge tenants. So, why aren't city administrators calling for tighter controls on "discretionary" zoning approvals for such mega- projects? And, why not consider how the city might require or strongly encourage those projects to provide housing for their personnel? Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Carol O'Hare 172 Magazine St. Cc: Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk - Please file this with the Official Record Virus-free. www.avg.com 1

Housing Committee Carol O'Hare Some Comments on Some Affordable Housing Overlay So-Called "Myths" Date: April 25, 2019 I was not involved in the ABC letter below or in the 10 residents' response. For efficiency (l've run out of time) and easy reference, I've copied the response letter below to make some of my own comments. See red. This doesn't mean I agree or disagree with other points and concerns raised by the 4/22 letter writers. Carol O'Hare 172 Magazine St. http://www.cambridgeday.com/2019/04/22/affordable-housing-overlay-myths-revisited- responding-to-groups-support-of-proposal/ Note: This letter, as published, is supplemented with references to relevant sections in the Zoning Proposal submitted to the Housing Committee March 28, 2019 • • Monday, April 22, 2019 CAMBRIDGE DAY Home»Opinion»Letters» Affordable housing overlay myths revisited: Responding to group's support of proposal Monday, April 22, 2019 In a recent letter to the editor about proposed affordable housing overlay zoning, citizens Becca Schofield and Alexandra Markiewicz lay out concerns about the zoning they believe to be misconceptions. The current version of the AHO can be found HERE. LETTER First it is important to correct the very premise of the letter, namely that the overlay will "make affordable housing development simpler and more cost effective." Their letter itself compounds misconceptions. While the overlay may try to simplify things for developers, it actually makes zoning overall more complex by adding another layer of zoning that could lead to dramatic changes in land values as well as radically different regulations for property owners and developers, a significant imbalance in power privileging the latter.

Schofield and Markiewicz are members of the group A Better Cambridge, which supports ongoing new housing construction in this city. Key among the goals of its mission statement is a desire to "expand affordable and market-rate home development throughout the city" and "encourage building new homes in all of Cambridge's neighborhoods." The vast increase in luxury (market-rate) homebuilding is one of the reasons we find ourselves needing more affordable housing. The push to focus only on homebuilding, rather than restoring and enhancing existing homes, puts ABC goals in direct conflict with addressing in real terms affordable housing concerns and our need to preserve and enhance mature trees and green spaces. Its sister organization, the A Better Cambridge Political Action Fund, a PAC that OCPF required to be formed so that the 501(c)(4) non-profit ABC would act separately from the PAC, supports the same goals. Are they acting separately now? See https://www.ocpf.us/Filers/ for more info. Here we ask - starting with language from Schofield and Markiewicz themselves - if each so- called myth is actually fact. Myth? "Buildings allowed under the overlay will be substantially taller than surrounding structures and homogenous in style." Fact: The heights may indeed be substantially taller than now. If the adjacent residence is two and a half stories (a story is about 10 feet), a four-story building is tall and a seven-story building on an adjacent avenue is huge. The overlay would allow 7-story/80" buildings abutting much lower homes, not just along "the avenues," but well within residential neighborhoods, e.g., Cambridgeport. (For proposed height, see §5.2.1 on p. 4 of Community Development's Zoning Proposal released March 28, 2019.) If sunlight is important to you, and you live on the north side of a corridor close to the property line, four stories next door may affect substantially whether you want to rent or own nearby. Each situation is different and should, as now, be looked at within the specific context of a site. Current Planning Board review allows tailoring, with real resident input. The overlay does not (see §8). The style of a building will also affect the impact of massing. Since this would be "as of right," developers can choose the style or design they want, ignoring abutters - and will generally look for the least expensive way to build. Myth? "The overlay will encourage developers to tear down existing buildings currently affordable for Cambridge's middle class." Fact: The overlay will encourage demolition of Cambridge existing buildings - affordable and not. The basic rule is that developers may alter or reconstruct existing buildings (§5.3) to comply with the overlay. Incentives to preserve existing structures are modest (for example, waiving off- street parking for units in existing buildings). This approach won't withstand the major economic incentives to tear down buildings to take advantage of relaxed height and setbacks and to get better financial returns squeezing more units in. In the process Cambridge may lose many historic structures reflecting the city's history and architectural legacy even if they are not appropriate for "landmark" status. The overlay's incentives to preserve the legacy are few and modest - halving their open space requirements, for example(e.g., §6.1(b). A key goal of the urban form working group from the Envision Cambridge planning process is to preserve our historic architecture. This should be ours as well, so we need to promote the use of the existing stock of homes for new affordable housing.

Myth? "As-of-right' means no design review or community input for these projects." Fact: "As-of-right" means that the city would remove current design review with meaningful community input and replace it with a foreshortened process that removes the citizen Planning Board as final arbiter (with significant resident input) and hands the decision instead to the city manager (§8). . A developer would not be constrained to follow specific guidelines that require a building conform more closely with best design practices or local context. The current system has worked well. Cities around the country that use form-based models of design created extensive design guidelines - often involving years of work and community input. The overlay does not. See for example: Cincinnati Ohio 245 pages https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/07/Cincinnati- Form-Based-Code_FinalDraft_Web.pdf Azuza. California (c.654 pages) https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/08/Azusa- development-code.pdf Daufuskie Island. SC (191 pp) https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/07/The- Daufuskie-Island-Code_Web.pdf The elimination of FAR limits is being marketed as derived from "form-based" zoning principles, which gives it a positive spin. But, that's akin to saying package-delivery drones are derived from birds. Just instead market this zoning amendment forthrightly: "Eliminating FAR limits, allows greater building 'mass." Myth? "The overlay won't add any more affordable housing." Fact: The overlay would likely bring few more units than those already being constructed each year according to Community Development staff speaking at an April 9 roundtable of the City Council's Housing Committee (see the early part of the televised video). They tried to defend an estimate of up to only 100 added units a year, a small number given the high price of ignoring other city interests and the low cost of better alternatives. They overlook the massive rush by developers to build or convert ever more luxury units in Cambridge, forcing out longtime residents and making the need for affordable housing even more grave. We are in a vicious circle. Myth? "One hundred percent affordable developments threaten trees and open space." Fact: The overlay, with its considerably reduced setbacks, will remove vital green spaces and mature trees. The overlay requires no green space or landscaping and does not require existing mature trees to be preserved (see §7.1). Indeed, the overlay allows developers to remove mature trees and green spaces so they can build the largest possible structures on the lot (see ($5.2.3(e) and §5.3(e)). The overlay's laudable objectives force its new projects into competition with the tree canopy. In addition, the overlay implicitly removes explicit tree protections in some areas, including the zoning areas known as Res C2-B, Bus A, Bus-1 and Bus-2 (see Zoning Ordinance,

Article 5 (Dimensional rules), $5.33 and Table 5.3 for Business Districts, $5.31 and Table 5.31 for Res. C-2B, which applies as well to Bus-A [see footnote k]). Cambridge's vital need to preserve mature trees, which sequester much more carbon than young trees, is one more reason to retain and rehab current buildings. Too often developers will seek to remove mature trees to facilitate building. Green spaces should be commensurate with the number of people living in a structure. Roof areas should not be included as open spaces because they do not support tree growth and do not enhance the streetscape, but the overlay allows up to 50 percent of open space to be on balconies, decks and roofs (§5.2.3(c).. Bike sheds also should not be a replacement for greenspaces or trees, but rather for vehicular parking. And, similarly, while 7.5' side yard setbacks may suffice for 4-story AHO buildings, that hardly seems sufficient for 7-story AHO buildings. I'd like to hear our Fire Dept.'s preference for setback requirements on such new housing buildings. Myth? "Reducing/eliminating parking minimums means no parking allowed. New projects without parking will worsen traffic." Fact: This misstates the concern greatly. The proposal doesn't prohibit parking - it leaves much of the decision to developer designs and the property. The overlay §6.1 sets a modest 0.4 of a space per unit, then excludes various situations such as buildings existing now, buildings in which four or fewer spaces are required or buildings within a half-mile of a train or subway stop or a quarter-mile of a bus stop. This exempts a lot of Cambridge. The developer will decide what and where to build based on relative net costs of parking and more units. Cambridge designed its policy to reduce parking to encourage people to switch to mass transit, but not everyone has close access to public transit at both ends of their journey. Some people - particularly with lower incomes - need to get to jobs at times of the day when public transport is not working or where public transport does not reach. So affordable housing residents near a T stop may still need a car if they work outside Cambridge. They will compete for street parking space, adding congestion. Myth? "Developers are all the same, and affordable housing development will just make them more money!" Fact: Obviously some developers are for-profit, others are nonprofit. Nothing in the zoning proposal prevents for-profits from developing affordable housing in the overlay. And indeed, several for-profit firms are among the group interested in doing just this. But it is important to distinguish between developers and investors: The latter definitely expect to make money; the former also do, if they are for-profits. I have no qualms about for-profit firms providing affordable housing if the quality of their housing is the same or better and public costs are the same or less.

Myth? "The overlay does not support the middle class; it encourages segregation by promoting 100 percent affordable buildings." Fact: Eighty percent of project renters must be at or below 80 percent of average income. The remaining 20 percent of renters may have incomes up to average. The overlay does not require the developer to take either middle-income renters or those who are truly low-income. For one person, 80 percent of the average is $56,800; for a family of four, $81,100(§3(c)). It is unlikely that anyone making less than half ($28,400 for one person, or $40,550 for four would enjoy these units, although Community Development and others say most would qualify. They would need a subsidy. Their long wait to get Cambridge's subsidy will lead a landlord to take the middle-low rather than lowest. We need a policy to support both the poorest residents and the middle-income who are also priced out by spiraling upward prices. Some at-risk families will lose their homes when their units are bought to build affordable housing. Similar problems confound overlay proposals for purchase(§3(d)). The city should propose a way to support middle-income ownership with down payments, shared equity or other means. Owners would return the units to the city when they leave. The city must provide a means so that people can move from one income level to another through the acquisition of homes within these or other units. The problem now is that people cannot accept better-paying jobs or they will lose their housing Myth? "Developers will pretend their units will be affordable to get the density boost, then make them market rate." Fact: This may be true; it depends on the city's enforcement practices. Some say it's lax now and will continue to be so. After a developer builds, will the city really be willing to require them to tear down a building if someone pleads the need for extra money from market rate units in a structure to make a project financially viable? Is the city anticipating adding extra staff to administer and enforce the overlay? As an example, apparently even now, I understand that the developer of the long-controversial St. James Place development is yet again before the Historical Commission and Planning Board for design changes and for converting their 4"-floor units to condos with private (rather than all-unit) roof-deck access. Myth? "This process is moving too quickly!" Fact: Community Development staff included few neighborhoods in their discussions until late 2018 and spring 2019, and mainly the participants seem to be supporters of this particular model of affordable housing. Moreover, the overlay and Envision plans have been changed dramatically over the past month. Too few in the city are aware of the plan - much less its many changes. Thus, for many, the process is seen to have started recently and to be moving too fast. Community Development started presenting the plan to neighborhoods late in 2018, saying nothing was set, but many residents had heard nothing of this initiative into 2019 and all had to wait until March 5 to see the first public draft. Residents had at best a couple days to read these documents fast and almost no time to prepare thoughtful comments to the Housing Committee at the supposedly final March 28 meeting to discuss the overlay.

This problematic rush is for a proposal that changes Cambridge zoning radically, from based on floor-area ratio to being form-based, used by only 1 percent of U.S. cities. The overlay proposal cherry picks elements of form-based zoning, ignoring essentials such as the role of neighborhoods. Residents have had almost no time to evaluate the switch, and even then, form- based planning itself is a problem in this context. Its value is to do cohesive planning for a whole neighborhood - including design style, green spaces and amenities such as grocery stores. This application is like doing surgery to add an artificial hip without addressing the larger skeletal and musculature system with which it is supposed to function. This process is moving too fast and without rigor or care that should attend the City's own citywide zoning amendment. Moreover, it seems like the public hearings may land in the middle of the summer when people are away and/or not paying attention. Let's not, yet again, perfect this after (instead of before) it's adopted. As an example, I refer you to the much more modest "Accessory Apartments" Ordinance that has been through the legislative-process ringer several times, and today is being re-advertised, after passage to a second reading by the Council on 4/22. As l've said before: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is a poor and sloppy excuse for not doing it well in the first place. In conclusion: Residents do not know how the overlay will affect existing zoning practices or be affected by the practices. City councillors probably also do not know. Community Development hasn't released this information and may not have it. One example illustrates the problem. Zoning law distinguishes between construction in setbacks above grade (normally the ground floor up) and below grade (normally the basement). What happens on a hill, where a basement in the front of a building is above ground in back? In some districts, zoning law says setbacks to a rear property line apply above and below ground. This is important, for example, for abutters on Green Street between Putnam Avenue and Central Square, where Massachusetts Avenue is often two stories higher. Zoning now says setbacks apply above and below grade; the overlay addresses setbacks but does not say they apply above and below grade (§5.2.2). Silence means construction could go to the rear property line despite the apparent back setback. The city should specify above and below, and reveal to the public the other situations in which law and practice will affect the overlay proposals. This Green St./Putnam Ave. hillside practical effect demonstrates perfectly why this citywide zoning amendment is simply not ready for prime time. It is vital that the Planning Board retain its current role in design oversight, a task that includes looking closely at the specific context of each neighborhood. It is also vital that residents continue their roles in helping to guide the board in its decisions, and that no developer be allowed to build across the city "as of right" without the current avenues of oversight. Better ways exist to increase affordable housing faster. All of us should help Cambridge put them in place.

Phil Wellons, Riverside Madeleine Aster, North Cambridge Suzanne Preston Blier, Harvard Square Dena Brody, Riverside Fritz Donovan, Mid-Cambridge Elizabeth Gombosi, Mid-Cambridge Peter Glick, Observatory Hill Chris Mackin, Harvard Square Marilee Meyer, Mid-Cambridge Marie Saccaccio, East Cambridge [C: \Users|Carol\Documents|PublicPolitical\Zoning-AffordableHousingOverlayCambr Day art 19 04 22 full-CBO supp-email HousingCommittee190425.doc)

Atlachment (37 Lopez, Donna From: Frank Paolitto < [email removed]> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2019 11:11 PM To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: Proposed 100%Affordable Housing Overlay I am writing this e-mail having lived in Cambridge over 60 years. I have lived over 40 years in the Alewife and Fresh Pond areas of the city. I love Cambridge and have seen my family grow and prosper in this City. This, however, is not simply an emotional appeal to maintain a beloved part of the City as a monument to an old, but outdated past. There is an increasing sense in the world of the importance of maintaining healthy communities, however those communities may be defined or described. A community may not be clearly defined on a map, but may still be powerfully present as a real entity by its inhabitants. I presume that one of the functions of City government is to strengthen the communities that make up its heart, skin, and bones. The strength of any City can only be measured by the combined strengths of its various communities. I have been saddened by the changes that I have seen occurring in my area in recent years. As more and larger structures were built, with seemingly little attention to the impact they were having on our community, I saw the gradual deterioration in the area's liveability. Large looming structures out of the scale of surrounding structures gave an increasing sense of alienation from an older and more human scale architecture. Traffic increased in a way that was dangerous for families with children, as the drivers sought short cuts through residential areas. We are already a densely populated city, and yet we had managed to maintain a sense of personal and neighborly space, in spite of the density. Care had been taken to keep our green spaces, and yet this new development has been accompanied by a wholescale deforestation. Developers have only succeeded at the cost of our wonderful trees. Do we really want to become Calcutta on the Charles? I fully understand the importance of Affordable Housing for the City. Indeed, only wish my own children could afford to live close by to us in Cambridge! However, I am doubtful that the initiative for Affordable Housing could not be accomplished to avoid the destructiveness of the current planning. I am grateful for your attention, Frank Paolitto Cambridge

Attachment (38 Crane, Paula From: Douglass Payne < [email removed]> Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:18 PM Sent: City Council To: Crane, Paula Cc: Housing Committee: Affordable Housing Overlay, Hearing - 4/25/2019 Subject: Dear City Councilors, I am submitting my comments on the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay zoning amendment that is being discussed at the Housing Committee hearing on 4/25/2019, as I will not be able to attend the meeting. I strongly oppose passage of the "Affordable Housing Overlay District". I am concerned that this rezoning proposal is being fast-tracked without any realistic assessment of its possible effects. ** The Overlay will incentivize the purchase of existing small single-family homes on large lots, their demolition, and the construction of out-of-scale buildings. ** Developers of the specified "affordable housing" will be able to build "As of Right". Developers working within these proposed standards will no longer need to keep the size and style of new buildings in line with existing properties in the same neighborhood. These developers will no longer need to be bothered by the right of citizens to appeal new construction that runs counter to the public good. ** The new height, setback, and parking-space requirements will encourage construction of the cheapest "boxes" that will be out of character in any neighborhood. ** The change in setback requirements will encourage the removal of existing trees, will eliminate open space and remove any reasonable space for gardens. There does not appear to have been any review of other options for increasing affordable housing, such as the renovation of existing properties and the city's purchase of larger tracts of open land. There also doesn't seem to be any planning to protect current low-income homeowners. The "Overlay" may have the effect of displacing current low-income home owners and simply replacing them with low-income tenants. There have been suggestions that the city should move the Overlay proposal forward, even if it is flawed, so that we "do not sacrifice the good for the perfect". This Overlay proposal is so far from "good" that we can easily say that no trash bin in City Hall should be soiled by its presence. The Overlay requires a thoughtful design review by professionals who can provide a reasonable estimate of how developers will respond once the regulatory controls have been eased, and how the city's neighborhoods may be affected. Height, setback, and parking requirements need to meet current city standards. Developers should not be allowed to build "As of Right". Alternatives need to be outlined in detail. Regards,

Douglass Payne 24 Sherman Street Cambridge 2

Crane, Paula Allachment C39 From: Nancy E. Phillips < nanphil|[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:39 PM To: Crane, Paula Fwd: proposed affordable housing overlay Subject: - Forwarded message ---- From: Nancy E. Phillips <[email removed]> Date: Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 4:35 PM Subject: proposed affordable housing overlay To: City Councilors < council@cambridgema.gov>, <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> I write in strong support of the proposed affordable housing zoning overlay, which (at very small inconvenience or disturbance to neighbors will make a significant dent in the per-unit cost of building affordable housing. As a retired affordable-housing professional I am keenly aware of the great gap between low-income/moderate- income families and affordable family housing in Cambridge, and I believe the proposed zoning change offers an opportunity to help whittle away at that gap at minimal cost to the City. Nancy Phillips Rice Street

Attachment C40 Lopez, Donna From: Tim Plaut <[email removed]> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 5:09 PM Clerk To: Subject: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay in Cambridge Dear Sir/ Madam, As the owner of 65 Fayerweather Street, Cambridge I am, having carefully studied your website documents under CDD/Projects/Housing writing to object to the proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay. Two of the key reasons for continuing to live in West Cambridge are these: a rich coverage in street and garden trees on the one hand and generally low rise residential property on the other . We of course recognise the need for a higher level of affordable housing. We were supportive of the last decade's intense addition of many thousands of new housing units in Fresh Pond and Alewife near us. However, the historic logic and key attractions of all of Cambridge would be threatened with your planned unlimited addition of taller buildings and ever less garden space. We are not alone in entertaining thoughts of moving our from Cambridge should the physical fabric of residential life continue to deteriorate. The City Council might wish to give regard to its property tax base. Yours, Timothy Plaut Sent from my iPhone

Attachment C41 Crane, Paula THOMAS POUNDS <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:40 PM Devereux, Jan; Clerk; City Council To: 100% Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: Greetings. I am a Cambridge resident and the publisher and editor of the latest edition of the AlA Guide to Boston Architecture, now an iPhone app. Updating the Guide with descriptions of more than 1,200 buildings, neighborhoods, and parks across the metro area, including hundreds in Cambridge, has revealed some simple truths: • Buildings last a long time, sometimes centuries • Attractive, distinctive neighborhoods are scarce, difficult to replicate, and fragile • Faster is not always better; a focus on speed often results in the most glaring blemishes on the cityscape. Among a number of concerns regarding the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay, I'll focus on just the proposal to streamline the design review process. As drafted, developers of affordable housing would still be required to host community meetings and undertake two cycles of review (at maximum) with the Planning Board, but any and all input they receive would be "non-binding." As I read it, developers only need to document that they followed certain process steps; with those boxes checked they could ignore all feedback and ultimately build as they see fit. Though I understand the intent to make the review process easier, this seems like a terrible idea. Talented architects and designers, which our city has in abundance, often do their best work under constraints including the tight budgets that characterize successful affordable housing projects. Without any requirement to reach agreement on design with the Planning Board or any oversight body, there would be no incentive for developers to engage our strongest, most creative designers. Indeed, we should expect them to spend as little as possible on architecture and design, and to simply optimize their projects for lowest cost. Over time, this will diminish the quality of our neighborhoods and compromise the distinctive character of our city. I understand design review is not a panacea. Among all the developments I have observed taking place across the Boston/Cambridge metro area in the course of updating the Guide, the new area around Alewife is perhaps the worst in terms of the poor quality of the overall plan and the banal design of many of the buildings. Assuming those projects did pass some design review, that suggests that whatever process exists today is flawed. But that's not a good reason to weaken it further; let's figure out how to implement a design review process with some teeth that ensures some standards of quality, while not being overly burdensome.

Please take the time to ensure this policy results not only in more affordable housing, but also in buildings and neighborhoods that we can all be proud of. Future generations are watching. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Thomas M. Pounds 102 Lexington Ave., Cambridge 02138

Allachment (42 Crane, Paula Andrew Richman < [email removed]> From: Thursday, April 25, 2019 8:50 AM Sent: To: City Council Clerk Cc: Subject: Overlay issue Hello council members, I am writing to express my support for strong action to address affordable housing in Cambridge but some concern about the way the overlay does this. I am very concerned about affordable housing but also concerned about increasing density without proper oversight. This overlay seems like a bit of a blunt instrument. I am concerned about the emphasis on 100% affordable housing - I would prefer a more mixed-income approach if we are increasing density. I also would like to see a more site-by-site approval process to make sure that existing housing is not too adversely affected -- the two story house suddenly overshadowed by a four story building, significant reduction of green space, significant increase of density without parking requirements. We need to increase housing stock, but I think I want the City to retain a bit more control over the process. In the end, my position is for the committee to approve the proposal for advancement to the ordinance committee, but I would like to see the committee make some changes to address the issues mentioned above before advancing it to the full city council for a vote. Thank you, Andrew Richman 36 Hubbard Avenue Cambridge

Attachment (43 Crane, Paula From: Christopher Schmidt <[email removed]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 12:29 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk Subject: I Support the Affordable Housing Overlay Members of the Council, Housing Committee Members, I am in support of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay proposal that is currently before the council. I believe that it provides a valuable path forward towards the creation of new affordable housing in Cambridge. As a long time resident, I have always loved the variety of housing in Cambridge, especially in my neighborhood of Cambridgeport. Unfortunately, building more varied housing like the buildings that I love is no longer possible: with changes to zoning laws over the past 100 years, many properties in Cambridge could no longer be built, primarily due to floor area restrictions that attempt to keep Cambridge less dense. The Affordable Housing Overlay brings back the ability to build units like those that already exist in our neighborhoods, while ensuring that those spaces will forever be available to folks who have moderate incomes -- ensuring that our community is not overwhelmed solely by high tech / biotech employees. l've been lucky to stay in Cambridge even as prices have increased. I have watched my friends who have not been so " lucky forced out by continued increases in pricing: as the joke goes, "Nobody lives there anymore: It's too expensive. As I look more deeply into Cambridge's current zoning status, I believe that the Affordable Housing Overlay as proposed offers a potential correcting force to historical inequities; I believe that it provides an incremental step towards creating a more broadly available set of housing for our massive backlog of affordable demand. I think that it provides an opportunity to create more housing in the neighborhood that I have lived in for 14 years, and love very much. I recently wrote about one location near me, and how the Affordable Housing Overlay could make a development possible there, where current zoning does not. It's a bit of a personal story of how this could affect me on my very own street, and digging into it made me extremely excited: the idea that there would be room for more people to be a part of our local community would be a great thing for the City of Cambridge. You can read it at: https://medium.com/@crschmidt/possibilities-for-affordable-housing-in-cambridge-3d8d2c7cf2c5 I encourage you to vote "Yes" to move the Affordable Housing Overlay out of committee, and look forward to seeing the city continue to move forward to make this proposal a reality. All the best, Christopher Schmidt 17 Laurel St. Cambridge, MA 1

Atlachment (44 Crane, Paula Jim Sokoloff < [email removed]> From: Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 11:44 AM City Council; Clerk To: Cc: Kris Dickson; [email removed]; Devereux, Jan Affordable Housing Overlay comments Subject: City Council Members, I've recently learned of the proposal to add a 100% Affordable Housing Overlay to the City of Cambridge zoning ordinances. Though I recognize the importance of and support the creation of additional affordable housing, I am opposed to the overlay exactly as proposed, for the following reasons: 1. I don't think that a second, parallel set of laws which apply to one subset of developers and property owners but not others is sufficiently fair or reasonable in light of the alternatives (#3/#4 below). This appears to be (and is stated as) a way to more quickly permit the construction of structures which violate the current zoning ordinances without the inconvenience and expense of public hearings and the granting of variances where those variances from current ordinances are appropriate. 2. I find the reduced setback requirements and increased height permissions particularly concerning in the contemplated as-of-right structure. Combining this with the prior point, I find it unreasonable that a developer could purchase my property and build a 45-foot tall, 4-story structure 10 feet from the lot line with substantially higher lot coverage, while I as a private owner am restricted to (as near as | can tell) a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, a height of 35', and 20 foot setbacks on both front yards [corner lot in A-2]. 3. I think the passing of a broad as-of-right development permit, though no doubt expedient and convenient for the Cambridge Housing Authority and other affordable housing developers, to be too large of an initial step towards supporting more affordable housing in Cambridge. I would support instead creating strong guidelines supportive of affordable housing to be used and considered by the zoning board during any variance hearings. This permits the neighborhood and zoning board to contemplate and consider the specifics of a contemplated development project, rather than passing a blanket as-of-right overlay that ties everyone's hands to an uncertain and non-specific future. In conjunction with that, if specific changes are appropriate to all users within a zoning district to increase the housing density overall, make those targeted and neighborhood-appropriate changes district by district. 4. Combined with #3, I don't see any reason to think that as part of a zoning variance application that special consideration and the requirements for permanent deed restrictions on the property to maintain them as 100% affordable could not be accomplished as contemplated by the overlay proposal. 5. Off-street parking modifications. With the ever-present concerns about parking availability in Cambridge neighborhoods, I am opposed to the depth and, again, as-of-right nature of the limitations on parking requirements. In particular, the draft text allows the construction of 10-unit dwellings, far from MBTA service, with zero requirement for off-street parking. That seems to be a deep, unwarranted, and unwise reduction in the amount of parking required to support such a residential usage, made more problematic by the lack of zoning board review. If some particular set of facts and circumstances made that outcome desirable, there is an existing zoning appeals process to permit such a use. 6. Smaller items that I have more specific comments about and that are more in the nature of errors or edits than substantive concerns of a consituent:

6a. It seems like the table of incomes (6a in the March 2019 FAQ) has mathematical errors which may be prone to improperly increase support for this proposal. If the 100% of median AGI figures are accurate, then all of the 80% figures are too low [and in fact are suspiciously close to the 75.2% of median figures] to make me suspect that the figures are presented in error. 6b. In the draft text 6.3.a is the text, "parking spaces may be arranged in tandem without requiring a special permit, provided that no more than two cars may be parked within any tandem parking space." This is not the correct place to write in parking restrictions. If the intention is to limit the number of "countable" (for zoning purposes) parking spaces in a tandem parking arrangement to two, make the text say that. Don't attempt to prohibit the parking of future cars in a space in a zoning ordinance. Sincerely, --Jim Sokoloff 45 Fresh Pond Pkwy, 02138 2

Attachment C45 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:22 PM Crane, Paula To: FW: Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Subject: From: Barbara Taggart <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:20 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning I urge the members of City Council not to advance the Overlay proposal. I would ask them to consider that the city of Somerville was once considered the the most dense city in the US and it was largely because of triple deckers. We are losing triple deckers in my neighborhood at an alarming pace, and it is a good indice of the displacement of middle income renters and multi-generational owners as well as the displacement of small successful businesses. What we see in their place is luxury condos, such as the 14 that have appeared on 6 blocks of Pearl and Decatur Streets that all sold for $1-2 million: There are many alternatives that should be considered. Wasn't 40B supposed to allow developers the latitude to build denser in communities that do not have 15% affordable housing? Didn't Chicago, NYC and others learn the lesson that warehousing lower income tenants in high buildings created a less livable environment and ultimately they tore them down? There was a similar study of high rise vs low rise dorms at UMass Amherst which came to the same conclusion. Finally I recently attended a discussion by a group called Livable Cambridge which posed the question: Who gets to decide what our city looks like, the developers, who are incentivized to build higher and denser, or the people who live here? And lastly, given that we have legitimate concerns about how the MBTA can accommodate the growth that is already projected, shouldn't we start with finding the cash to fix the MBTA first before discussing more building? Barbara Taggart, 2 Cottage Ct, 02139. Please enter my letter in the official record of the City Coucil. Thank- you.

Attachment C44 4125/19 Cambridge Affordable Housing Every bubie Meeting Thank You. thomes cel Hello. May name is tithony I live at 348 Frantion street and I au here to speak in favor of the Overlay sistiet. I'd like Affordable Taring to saut by posing a question: Whet Kind of city, does Cambridge went to be? Do we want to be a place where lau-income communties are relegated to contem pot a he tristan e Where ne matterin of racial and socio economic segregation. Or do he want to be a city that entergege encourages dirensity, inclusion, and Sistinebility. Because The status quo is not sustennable. I went to tire in puit peoples michers, fathers, a city that, chiberen, friends) (even Those Who hove 5, tree less Than us) First. Before setti ty lined cool streets with single family homes, and rose gardens lots pit people first and support this overby. distriet.

Attachment C47 Crane, Paula Mimi Truslow <[email removed]> From: Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 1:13 PM To: City Council Cc: Clerk; Bill Subject: Proposed overlay To: The Cambridge City Council: We wish to repeat our very strong opposition to the proposed zoning Overlay, as we expressed in our e-mail of 16 April. William and Miriam Truslow 4 Hawthorn Street Cambridge

Atlachment C48 Crane, Paula From: Daniel & Emie <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:32 PM To: City Council Clerk Co: Subject: Supporting the Overlay This is Emie Michaud Weinstock. I support the proposed overlay. I support a plan that will put more affordable units in the City of Cambridge AND those units must remain affordable for Cambridge residents in perpetuity. It is incredibly sad, disheartening and anger inducing to continuously hear about long time Black and immigrant residents moving out of Cambridge due to affordability and availability. And yet continuously seeing more and more white and affluent residents moving in. Do Better. Best Emie Michaud Weinstock. When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak." -Audre Lorde

Attachment (49 Crane, Paula From: pwellons < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 9:12 AM To: City Council; Crane, Paula For the Housing Committee meeting today and other City Council members Subject: Attachments: Cambr Day art 19 04 22 full.doc Dear members of the Housing Committee and other City Council members Please do not report the Overlay out of committee but hold it for further consideration. Please see the letter in Cambridge Day (Monday April 22, 2019) from other residents and me, both renters and home owners. It addresses and corrects some misrepresentations of what the Overlay will actually do. Here is a link to it: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2019/04/22/affordable-housing-overlay-myths-revisited-responding-to- groups-support-of-proposal/ I attach a copy of our letter with references Cambridge Day removed for brevity. Please take the time to read it. Our goal was to help people go to the text of the zoning proposals to see what they actually say and allow. You can also see the full text below. Yours, Phil Wellons 651 Green Street Note: This letter, as published, is supplemented with references to relevant sections in the draft Zoning Proposal submitted to the Housing Committee March 28, 2019 Monday, April 22, 2019 CAMBRIDGE DAY 1

Home»Opinion»Letters» Affordable housing overlay myths revisited: Responding to group's support of proposal Monday, April 22, 2019 In a recent letter to the editor about proposed affordable housing overlay zoning, citizens Becca Schofield and Alexandra Markiewicz lay out concerns about the zoning they believe to be misconceptions. The current version of the AHO can be found HERE. First it is important to correct the very premise of the letter, namely that the overlay will "make affordable housing development simpler and more cost effective." Their letter itself compounds misconceptions. While the overlay may try to simplify things for developers, it actually makes zoning overall more complex by adding another layer of zoning that could lead to dramatic changes in land values as well as radically different regulations for property owners and developers, a significant imbalance in power privileging the latter. Schofield and Markiewicz are members of the group A Better Cambridge, which supports ongoing new housing construction in this city. Key among the goals of its mission statement is a desire to "expand affordable and market-rate home development throughout the city" and "encourage building new homes in all of Cambridge's neighborhoods." The vast increase in luxury (market-rate) homebuilding is one of the reasons we find ourselves needing more affordable housing. The push to focus only on homebuilding, rather than restoring and enhancing existing homes, puts ABC goals in direct conflict with addressing in real terms affordable housing concerns and our need to preserve and enhance mature trees and green spaces. Its sister organization, the A Better Cambridge Action Fund, supports the same goals. Here we ask - starting with language from Schofield and Markiewicz themselves - if each so-called myth is actually fact. Myth? "Buildings allowed under the overlay will be substantially taller than surrounding structures and homogenous in style." Fact: The heights may indeed be substantially taller than now. If the adjacent residence is two and a half stories (a story is about 10 feet), a four-story building is tall and a seven-story building on an adjacent avenue is huge. (For proposed height, see §5.2.1 on p. 4 of Community Development's Zoning Proposal released March 28, 2019.) If sunlight is important to you, and you live on the north side of a corridor close to the property line, four stories next door may affect substantially whether you want to rent or own nearby. Each situation is different and should, as now, be looked at within the specific context of a site. Current Planning Board review allows tailoring, with real resident input. The overlay does not (see §8). The style of a building will also affect the impact of massing. Since this would be "as of right," developers can choose the style or design they want, ignoring abutters - and will generally look for the least expensive way to build. Myth? "The overlay will encourage developers to tear down existing buildings currently affordable for Cambridge's middle class." Fact: The overlay will encourage demolition of Cambridge existing buildings - affordable and not. The basic rule is that developers may alter or reconstruct existing buildings (§5.3) to comply with the overlay. Incentives to preserve existing structures are modest (for example, waiving off-street parking for units in existing buildings). This approach won't withstand the major economic incentives to tear down buildings to take advantage of relaxed height and setbacks and to get better financial returns squeezing more units in. In the process Cambridge may lose many historic structures reflecting the city's history and architectural legacy even 2

if they are not appropriate for "landmark" status. The overlay's incentives to preserve the legacy are few and modest - halving their open space requirements, for example(e.g., §6.1(b). A key goal of the urban form working group from the Envision Cambridge planning process is to preserve our historic architecture. This should be ours as well, so we need to promote the use of the existing stock of homes for new affordable housing. Myth? "'As-of-right' means no design review or community input for these projects." Fact: "As-of-right" means that the city would remove current design review with meaningful community input and replace it with a foreshortened process that removes the citizen Planning Board as final arbiter (with significant resident input) and hands the decision instead to the city manager (§8). A developer would not be constrained to follow specific guidelines that require a building conform more closely with best design practices or local context. The current system has worked well. Cities around the country that use form-based models of design created extensive design guidelines - often involving years of work and community input. The overlay does not. See for example: Cincinnati Ohio 245 pages https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/07/Cincinnati-Form-Based- Code_FinalDraft_Web.pdf Azuza. California (c.654 pages) https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/08/Azusa-development- code.pdf Daufuskie Island. SC (191 pp) https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/07/The-Daufuskie-Island- Code_Web.pdf Myth? "The overlay won't add any more affordable housing." Fact: The overlay would likely bring few more units than those already being constructed each year according to Community Development staff speaking at an April 9 roundtable of the City Council's Housing Committee (see the early part of the televised video). They tried to defend an estimate of up to only 100 added units a year, a small number given the high price of ignoring other city interests and the low cost of better alternatives. They overlook the massive rush by developers to build or convert ever more luxury units in Cambridge, forcing out longtime residents and making the need for affordable housing even more grave. We are in a vicious circle. Myth? "One hundred percent affordable developments threaten trees and open space." Fact: The overlay, with its considerably reduced setbacks, will remove vital green spaces and mature trees. The overlay requires no green space or landscaping and does not require existing mature trees to be preserved (see §7.1). Indeed, the overlay allows developers to remove mature trees and green spaces so they can build the largest possible structures on the lot (see ($5.2.3(e) and §5.3(e)). The overlay's laudable objectives force its new projects into competition with the tree canopy. In addition, the overlay implicitly removes explicit tree protections in some areas, including the zoning areas known as Res C2-B, Bus A, Bus-1 and Bus-2 (see Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 (Dimensional rules), §5.33 and Table 5.3 for Business Districts, §5.31 and Table 5.31 for Res. C-2B, which applies as well to Bus-A [see footnote k]). Cambridge's vital need to preserve mature trees, which sequester much more carbon than young trees, is one more reason to retain and rehab current buildings. Too often developers will seek to remove mature trees to facilitate building. Green spaces should be commensurate with the number of people living in a structure. Roof areas should not be included as open spaces because they do not support tree growth and do not enhance the streetscape, but the overlay allows up to 50 percent of open space to be on roofs ($5.2.3(c)).. Bike sheds also should not be a replacement for greenspaces or trees, but rather for vehicular parking. 3

Myth? "Reducing/eliminating parking minimums means no parking allowed. New projects without parking will worsen traffic." Fact: This misstates the concern greatly. The proposal doesn't prohibit parking - it leaves much of the decision to developer designs and the property. The overlay §6.1 sets a modest 0.4 of a space per unit, then excludes various situations such as buildings existing now, buildings in which four or fewer spaces are required or buildings within a half-mile of a train or subway stop or a quarter-mile of a bus stop. This exempts a lot of Cambridge. The developer will decide what and where to build based on relative net costs of parking and more units. Cambridge designed its policy to reduce parking to encourage people to switch to mass transit, but not everyone has close access to public transit at both ends of their journey. Some people - particularly with lower incomes - need to get to jobs at times of the day when public transport is not working or where public transport does not reach. So affordable housing residents near a T stop may still need a car if they work outside Cambridge. They will compete for street parking space, adding congestion. Myth? "Developers are all the same, and affordable housing development will just make them more money!" Fact: Obviously some developers are for-profit, others are nonprofit. Nothing in the zoning proposal prevents for-profits from developing affordable housing in the overlay. And indeed, several for-profit firms are among the group interested in doing just this. But it is important to distinguish between developers and investors: The latter definitely expect to make money; the former also do, if they are for-profits. Myth? "The overlay does not support the middle class; it encourages segregation by promoting 100 percent affordable buildings." Fact: Eighty percent of project renters must be at or below 80 percent of average income. The remaining 20 percent of renters may have incomes up to average. The overlay does not require the developer to take either middle-income renters or those who are truly low-income. For one person, 80 percent of the average is $56,800; for a family of four, $81,100 (§3(c)). It is unlikely that anyone making less than half ($28,400 for one person, or $40,550 for four) would enjoy these units, although Community Development and others say most would qualify. They would need a subsidy. Their long wait to get Cambridge's subsidy will lead a landlord to take the middle-low rather than lowest. We need a policy to support both the poorest residents and the middle-income who are also priced out by spiraling upward prices. Some at-risk families will lose their homes when their units are bought to build affordable housing. Similar problems confound overlay proposals for purchase (§3(d)). The city should propose a way to support middle-income ownership with down payments, shared equity or other means. Owners would return the units to the city when they leave. The city must provide a means so that people can move from one income level to another through the acquisition of homes within these or other units. The problem now is that people cannot accept better-paying jobs or they will lose their housing. Myth? "Developers will pretend their units will be affordable to get the density boost, then make them market rate." Fact: This may be true; it depends on the city's enforcement practices. Some say it's lax now and will continue to be so. After a developer builds, will the city really be willing to require them to tear down a building if someone pleads the need for extra money from market rate units in a structure to make a project financially viable? Is the city anticipating adding extra staff to administer and enforce the overlay? Myth? "This process is moving too quickly!" 4

Fact: Community Development staff included few neighborhoods in their discussions until late 2018 and spring 2019, and mainly the participants seem to be supporters of this particular model of affordable housing. Moreover, the overlay and Envision plans have been changed dramatically over the past month. Too few in the city are aware of the plan - much less its many changes. Thus, for many, the process is seen to have started recently and to be moving too fast. Community Development started presenting the plan to neighborhoods late in 2018, saying nothing was set, but many residents had heard nothing of this initiative into 2019 and all had to wait until March 5 to see the first public draft. Residents had at best a couple days to read these documents fast and almost no time to prepare thoughtful comments to the Housing Committee at the supposedly final March 28 meeting to discuss the overlay. This problematic rush is for a proposal that changes Cambridge zoning radically, from based on floor-area ratio to being form-based, used by only 1 percent of U.S. cities. The overlay proposal cherry picks elements of form- based zoning, ignoring essentials such as the role of neighborhoods. Residents have had almost no time to evaluate the switch, and even then, form-based planning itself is a problem in this context. Its value is to do cohesive planning for a whole neighborhood - including design style, green spaces and amenities such as grocery stores. This application is like doing surgery to add an artificial hip without addressing the larger skeletal and musculature system with which it is supposed to function. In conclusion: Residents do not know how the overlay will affect existing zoning practices or be affected by the practices. City councillors probably also do not know. Community Development hasn't released this information and may not have it. One example illustrates the problem. Zoning law distinguishes between construction in setbacks above grade (normally the ground floor up) and below grade (normally the basement). What happens on a hill, where a basement in the front of a building is above ground in back? In some districts, zoning law says setbacks to a rear property line apply above and below ground. This is important, for example, for abutters on Green Street between Putnam Avenue and Central Square, where Massachusetts Avenue is often two stories higher. Zoning which law and practice will affect the overlay proposals. It is vital that the Planning Board retain its current role in design oversight, a task that includes looking closely at the specific context of each neighborhood. It is also vital that residents continue their roles in helping to guide the board in its decisions, and that no developer be allowed to build across the city "as of right" without the current avenues of oversight. Better ways exist to increase affordable housing faster. All of us should help Cambridge put them in place. Phil Wellons, Riverside Madeleine Aster, North Cambridge Suzanne Preston Blier, Harvard Square Dena Brody, Riverside Fritz Donovan, Mid-Cambridge Elizabeth Gombosi, Mid-Cambridge Peter Glick, Observatory Hill Chris Mackin, Harvard Square Marilee Meyer, Mid-Cambridge Marie Saccaccio, East Cambridge 5

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2019/04/22/affordable-housing-overlay-myths-revisited- responding-to-groups-support-of-proposal/ Note: This letter, as published, is supplemented with references to relevant sections in the Zoning Proposal submitted to the Housing Committee March 28, 2019 • • Monday, April 22, 2019 CAMBRIDGE DAY Home»Opinion»Letters» Affordable housing overlay myths revisited: Responding to group's support of proposal Monday, April 22, 2019 In a recent letter to the editor about proposed affordable housing overlay zoning, citizens Becca Schofield and Alexandra Markiewicz lay out concerns about the zoning they believe to be misconceptions. The current version of the AHO can be found HERE. First it is important to correct the very premise of the letter, namely that the overlay will "make affordable housing development simpler and more cost effective." Their letter itself compounds misconceptions. While the overlay may try to simplify things for developers, it actually makes zoning overall more complex by adding another layer of zoning that could lead to dramatic changes in land values as well as radically different regulations for property owners and developers, a significant imbalance in power privileging the latter. Schofield and Markiewicz are members of the group A Better Cambridge, which supports ongoing new housing construction in this city. Key among the goals of its mission statement is a desire to "expand affordable and market-rate home development throughout the city" and "encourage building new homes in all of Cambridge's neighborhoods." The vast increase in luxury (market-rate) homebuilding is one of the reasons we find ourselves needing more affordable housing. The push to focus only on homebuilding, rather than restoring and enhancing existing homes, puts ABC goals in direct conflict with addressing in real terms affordable

housing concerns and our need to preserve and enhance mature trees and green spaces. Its sister organization, the A Better Cambridge Action Fund, supports the same goals. Here we ask - starting with language from Schofield and Markiewicz themselves - if each so- called myth is actually fact. Myth? "Buildings allowed under the overlay will be substantially taller than surrounding structures and homogenous in style." Fact: The heights may indeed be substantially taller than now. If the adjacent residence is two and a half stories (a story is about 10 feet), a four-story building is tall and a seven-story building on an adjacent avenue is huge. (For proposed height, see $5.2.1 on p. 4 of Community Development's Zoning Proposal released March 28, 2019.) If sunlight is important to you, and you live on the north side of a corridor close to the property line, four stories next door may affect substantially whether you want to rent or own nearby. Each situation is different and should, as now, be looked at within the specific context of a site. Current Planning Board review allows tailoring, with real resident input. The overlay does not (see §8). The style of a building will also affect the impact of massing. Since this would be "as of right," developers can choose the style or design they want, ignoring abutters - and will generally look for the least expensive way to build. Myth? "The overlay will encourage developers to tear down existing buildings currently affordable for Cambridge's middle class." Fact: The overlay will encourage demolition of Cambridge existing buildings - affordable and not. The basic rule is that developers may alter or reconstruct existing buildings (§5.3) to comply with the overlay. Incentives to preserve existing structures are modest (for example, waiving off- street parking for units in existing buildings). This approach won't withstand the major economic incentives to tear down buildings to take advantage of relaxed height and setbacks and to get better financial returns squeezing more units in. In the process Cambridge may lose many historic structures reflecting the city's history and architectural legacy even if they are not status. The overlay's incentives to preserve the legacy are few and appropriate for "landmark" modest - halving their open space requirements, for example(e.g., §6.1(b). A key goal of the urban form working group from the Envision Cambridge planning process is to preserve our historic architecture. This should be ours as well, so we need to promote the use of the existing stock of homes for new affordable housing. Myth? "As-of-right' means no design review or community input for these projects." Fact: "As-of-right" means that the city would remove current design review with meaningful community input and replace it with a foreshortened process that removes the citizen Planning Board as final arbiter (with significant resident input) and hands the decision instead to the city manager (§8). . A developer would not be constrained to follow specific guidelines that require a building conform more closely with best design practices or local context. The current system has worked well. Cities around the country that use form-based models of design created

extensive design guidelines - often involving years of work and community input. The overlay does not. See for example: Cincinnati Ohio 245 pages https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/07/Cincinnati- Form-Based-Code_FinalDraft_Web.pdf Azuza. California (c.654 pages) https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/08/Azusa- development-code.pdf Daufuskie Island. SC (191 pp) https://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/07/The- Daufuskie-Island-Code_Web.pdf Myth? "The overlay won't add any more affordable housing." Fact: The overlay would likely bring few more units than those already being constructed each year according to Community Development staff speaking at an April 9 roundtable of the City Council's Housing Committee (see the early part of the televised video). They tried to defend an estimate of up to only 100 added units a year, a small number given the high price of ignoring other city interests and the low cost of better alternatives. They overlook the massive rush by developers to build or convert ever more luxury units in Cambridge, forcing out longtime residents and making the need for affordable housing even more grave. We are in a vicious circle. Myth? "One hundred percent affordable developments threaten trees and open space." Fact: The overlay, with its considerably reduced setbacks, will remove vital green spaces and mature trees. The overlay requires no green space or landscaping and does not require existing mature trees to be preserved (see §7.1). Indeed, the overlay allows developers to remove mature trees and green spaces so they can build the largest possible structures on the lot (see (§5.2.3(e) and §5.3(e)). The overlay's laudable objectives force its new projects into competition with the tree canopy. In addition, the overlay implicitly removes explicit tree protections in some areas, including the zoning areas known as Res C2-B, Bus A, Bus-1 and Bus-2 (see Zoning Ordinance, Article 5 (Dimensional rules), $5.33 and Table 5.3 for Business Districts, $5.31 and Table 5.31 for Res. C-2B, which applies as well to Bus-A [see footnote k]). Cambridge's vital need to preserve mature trees, which sequester much more carbon than young trees, is one more reason to retain and rehab current buildings. Too often developers will seek to remove mature trees to facilitate building. Green spaces should be commensurate with the number of people living in a structure. Roof areas should not be included as open spaces because they do not support tree growth and do not enhance the streetscape, but the overlay allows up to 50 percent of open space to be on roofs ($5.2.3(c)).. Bike sheds also should not be a replacement for greenspaces or trees, but rather for vehicular parking. Myth? "Reducing/eliminating parking minimums means no parking allowed. New projects without parking will worsen traffic." Fact: This misstates the concern greatly. The proposal doesn't prohibit parking - it leaves much of the decision to developer designs and the property. The overlay §6.1 sets a modest 0.4 of a

space per unit, then excludes various situations such as buildings existing now, buildings in which four or fewer spaces are required or buildings within a half-mile of a train or subway stop or a quarter-mile of a bus stop. This exempts a lot of Cambridge. The developer will decide what and where to build based on relative net costs of parking and more units. Cambridge designed its policy to reduce parking to encourage people to switch to mass transit, but not everyone has close access to public transit at both ends of their journey. Some people - particularly with lower incomes - need to get to jobs at times of the day when public transport is not working or where public transport does not reach. So affordable housing residents near a T stop may still need a car if they work outside Cambridge. They will compete for street parking space, adding congestion. Myth? "Developers are all the same, and affordable housing development will just make them more money!" Fact: Obviously some developers are for-profit, others are nonprofit. Nothing in the zoning proposal prevents for-profits from developing affordable housing in the overlay. And indeed, several for-profit firms are among the group interested in doing just this. But it is important to distinguish between developers and investors: The latter definitely expect to make money; the former also do, if they are for-profits. Myth? "The overlay does not support the middle class; it encourages segregation by promoting 100 percent affordable buildings." Fact: Eighty percent of project renters must be at or below 80 percent of average income. The remaining 20 percent of renters may have incomes up to average. The overlay does not require the developer to take either middle-income renters or those who are truly low-income. For one person, 80 percent of the average is $56,800; for a family of four, $81,100(§3(c)). It is unlikely that anyone making less than half ($28,400 for one person, or $40,550 for four) would enjoy these units, although Community Development and others say most would qualify. They would need a subsidy. Their long wait to get Cambridge's subsidy will lead a landlord to take the middle-low rather than lowest. We need a policy to support both the poorest residents and the middle-income who are also priced out by spiraling upward prices. Some at-risk families will lose their homes when their units are bought to build affordable housing. Similar problems confound overlay proposals for purchase(§3(d)). The city should propose a way to support middle-income ownership with down payments, shared equity or other means. Owners would return the units to the city when they leave. The city must provide a means so that people can move from one income level to another through the acquisition of homes within these or other units. The problem now is that people cannot accept better-paying jobs or they will lose their housing. Myth? "Developers will pretend their units will be affordable to get the density boost, then make them market rate." Fact: This may be true; it depends on the city's enforcement practices. Some say it's lax now and will continue to be so. After a developer builds, will the city really be willing to require them

to tear down a building if someone pleads the need for extra money from market rate units in a structure to make a project financially viable? Is the city anticipating adding extra staff to administer and enforce the overlay? Myth? "This process is moving too quickly!" Fact: Community Development staff included few neighborhoods in their discussions until late 2018 and spring 2019, and mainly the participants seem to be supporters of this particular model of affordable housing. Moreover, the overlay and Envision plans have been changed dramatically over the past month. Too few in the city are aware of the plan - much less its many changes. Thus, for many, the process is seen to have started recently and to be moving too fast. Community Development started presenting the plan to neighborhoods late in 2018, saying nothing was set, but many residents had heard nothing of this initiative into 2019 and all had to wait until March 5 to see the first public draft. Residents had at best a couple days to read these documents fast and almost no time to prepare thoughtful comments to the Housing Committee at the supposedly final March 28 meeting to discuss the overlay. This problematic rush is for a proposal that changes Cambridge zoning radically, from based on floor-area ratio to being form-based, used by only 1 percent of U.S. cities. The overlay proposal cherry picks elements of form-based zoning, ignoring essentials such as the role of neighborhoods. Residents have had almost no time to evaluate the switch, and even then, form- based planning itself is a problem in this context. Its value is to do cohesive planning for a whole neighborhood - including design style, green spaces and amenities such as grocery stores. This application is like doing surgery to add an artificial hip without addressing the larger skeletal and musculature system with which it is supposed to function. In conclusion: Residents do not know how the overlay will affect existing zoning practices or be affected by the practices. City councillors probably also do not know. Community Development hasn't released this information and may not have it. One example illustrates the problem. Zoning law distinguishes between construction in setbacks above grade (normally the ground floor up) and below grade (normally the basement). What happens on a hill, where a basement in the front of a building is above ground in back? In some districts, zoning law says setbacks to a rear property line apply above and below ground. This is important, for example, for abutters on Green Street between Putnam Avenue and Central Square, where Massachusetts Avenue is often two stories higher. Zoning now says setbacks apply above and below grade; the overlay addresses setbacks but does not say they apply above and below grade (§5.2.2). Silence means construction could go to the rear property line despite the apparent back setback. The city should specify above and below, and reveal to the public the other situations in which law and practice will affect the overlay proposals. It is vital that the Planning Board retain its current role in design oversight, a task that includes looking closely at the specific context of each neighborhood. It is also vital that residents continue their roles in helping to guide the board in its decisions, and that no developer be allowed to build across the city "as of right" without the current avenues of oversight. Better ways exist to increase affordable housing faster. All of us should help Cambridge put them in place.

Phil Wellons, Riverside Madeleine Aster, North Cambridge Suzanne Preston Blier, Harvard Square Dena Brody, Riverside Fritz Donovan, Mid-Cambridge Elizabeth Gombosi, Mid-Cambridge Peter Glick, Observatory Hill Chris Mackin, Harvard Square Marilee Meyer, Mid-Cambridge Marie Saccaccio, East Cambridge

Alachment (50 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:16 PM Crane, Paula To: FW: Overlay Zoning: 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY Subject: From: ANDREA WILDER <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 11:36 AM To: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV> Cc: Lopez, Donna < dlopez@cambridgema.gov> Subject: Overlay Zoning: 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY 1. NO RIGHT TO APPEAL! -building By Right takes away possibility of Appeal 2. NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON TREE CANOPY! --open space is mandatory for new trees -tearing down houses to build maximum number of affordable units will leave NO SPACE for trees, Cambridge is DESPERATE FOR TREES TO MITIGATE THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. Andrea Wilder 12 Arlington Street

Attachment 451 Crane, Paula From: Lopez, Donna Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 8:38 AM Crane, Paula To: FW: [FreshPond RA] Additional Comments on the Affordable Housing Overlay Subject: From: Jay yesselman <[email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 6:03 PM To: Doug Brown <[email removed]> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@CambridgeMA.GOV>; City Manager <CityManager@CambridgeMA.GOV>; Lopez, Donna <dlopez@cambridgema.gov>; livablecambridge <[email removed]>; Fresh Pond Residents Alliance <[email removed]> Subject: Re: [FreshPond RA] Additional Comments on the Affordable Housing Overlay Unless I'm totally misguided, the goal of this zoning change, if enacted, is to build enough more affordable housing to "move the needle." and make Cambridge more affordable for more low to middle income families who are being forced out of Cambridge. That's a great goal. I also know there is no free lunch. Are there metrics to measure success and metrics to measure cost? What are the forecasts? Who's doing the measuring? Thanks Jay Yesselman On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM 'Doug Brown' via Fresh Pond Residents Alliance <fresh-pond-residents- [email removed]> wrote: Dear members of the Housing Committee, Once again, the City has submitted last minute changes to the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning language, as well as additional FAQs, just hours in advance of a public hearing on the matter. Are you actually trying to be that sneaky, or is this just basic incompetence? Regardless of the cause, it is clearly not helpful to public comment to have new zoning language provided with almost no time allowed to review it. I have looked at the revisions quickly, and though they are small steps in the right direction, it is clear that the zoning language as currently constituted is far from ready to be passed to the full Council. Indeed, the newest changes close several obvious loopholes and make minor corrections to existing text, but otherwise do very little to address the largest concerns expressed by the community to date, including inadequate protections for existing middle-income housing, reduced climate resiliency, extremely excessive density, and a complete lack of community

oversight. Even so, it's impossible to provide legitimate and substantive feedback on such a complex document in such a short time. As such, I would request that the Housing Committee refrain from passing this proposal on to the full Council until such time as the public has had time to review and respond to the proposed changes. And going forward, can we also agree to be more timely and transparent? This is an important matter and deserves to be treated as such. Sincerely, Doug Brown 35 Standish Street -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fresh Pond Residents Alliance" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fresh-pond-residents- [email removed]. To post to this group, send email to [email removed]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fresh-pond-residents-alliance. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Attachment (52 April 24, 2019 City Councilors City Manager Dear Honorable Members, This process on behalf of the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay has been fraught with mis-information, shape-shifting, goal post-moving and confusion. While the goal may be laudable, even idealistic, there are too many questions to have it move forward to the Ordinance Committee in a responsible manner. The public has been presented with frequent meetings where there has been no resolution or conclusions. We have looked at arbitrary numbers without facts to back them up. We have been presented with tweaked guidelines but officials have yet to take the deep dive into details, some of which I bet would conclude the implausibility of this plan as it stands now and contrary to Envision goals. The AHO is still a one-size-fits-all. CDD has listed 13 neighborhoods even though we can identify more. If part of the Envision mandate is to protect the historical character of the streetscape, why isn't the AHO held to the same criteria? Have you visited the Strawberry Hill district on the Belmont border? How is that rabbit-warren of a small dense neighborhood of cottages and narrow streets going to accommodate 4-7 story boxes which by their very nature would have to take out trees and open space? Form-based zoning has been presented as the new bright and shiny object but NO ONE has explained it let alone truly understands its intent. The original national guidelines include studying ALL NEIGHBORHOODS to tailor criteria individually. Not so here. Details are being cherry-picked and like a house of cards, our version of Form-based may prove to be inappropriate, even detrimental to largely non-conforming historically drawn properties. And I highly doubt that even Councilors understand the complete nuances of this approach. A nicely drawn letter was submitted by a GSD student illustrating in pen drawing a "hypothetical build out" of an existing street. He added extensions, wings and infill IN CONTEXTUAL DESIGN which kept the peaked roofs, fenestration, proportions and architectural language. We can do that now under current zoning. The student does not understand that any new building would not have a design review which would lead to such an idealistic scenario. It is more likely that "as of right" building would look for the cheapest and easiest construction without binding oversight.

Atlachment D I have spoken about the proposed 100% affordable housing overlay before. Thank you for the chance to respond with further concerns: Neighborhood Nine, where I live, may not be as densely populated as other parts of Cambridge. Density and number of affordable units are not the only ways to contribute to the diversity and vibrancy of a city. Former City officials turned Neighborhood Nine, once the City's dump area, into a city-wide resource so that high school students and residents now have practice fields, picnic areas, outdoor concert venues, a place for hazardous-waste collection days, a dog park, Little League fields. Adult-team soccer games where I hear players speaking mostly Spanish or Portuguese. As with everything in life, there are downsides to living near citywide resources, even ones that are open space - increased traffic from other towns as competing teams come to lose to our fabulous CRLS Falcons on Danehy's soccer fields, non-residents parking on city streets when folks from Watertown, Lexington, etc. play our Little League teams. Booming music from park loudspeakers during city festivals and permitted events. A map of affordable housing density does not tell the whole story of how a Neighborhood contributes to the diversity and overall well-being of a city. Fresh Pond Parkway is a daily reminder that Cambridge already suffers a local problem due to accepting what was originally meant to accommodate the entire region. If the Alewife parking garage had been built near Rte. 128, as originally proposed, we probably wouldn't have a day-long traffic jam inching through Cambridge five days a week. We certainly wouldn't have the warren of housing (little of it affordable), office and hotel complexes built on our floodplain because they can be advertised as being near mass transit. With the 100% affordable overlay Cambridge is working to solve a problem that is not something we can solve alone. Maybe once upon a time, but not now. Today, one of my neighbors works in Brookline, another in Lexington. My husband and I worked in Framingham. I only hope that part of developing an affordable housing overlay for Cambridge includes reaching out to other cities and towns in the area. I'm sure they are aware that the problem of affordable housing will eventually arrive on their doorsteps as well. The sooner towns unite in working the problem together, the better the opportunities will be for locating and funding affordable housing, making the entire region a diverse one full of vibrant neighborhoods, and with a workforce sufficient to keep our corner of the world economically viable. Lisa Camacho 24 Corporal Burns Rd. April 25, 2019

Atachment E Charles Jessup Franklin 162 Hampshire St Councilors, I have spoken here many times about the overlay proposal and my concerns with it as written. appreciate the changes made to the draft released yesterday, but I still don't believe they address I greatest concern, housing equality. To me, part of housing equality means being able to be part of a neighborhood, not just in it, particularly without the things other neighbors have to maintain a good quality of life. This will not be found in a micro unit. l've created my own affordable housing overlay. I met with homeowners, renters, section 8 voucher holders, and the CDD in the creation of this plan. Two very strong supporters of the CDD overlay said they'd take my plan right now without the parking requirements beyond ADA compliance. But enough about the details. I want to talk about the discourse. Over the past two months, the vitriol in this room and on social media has come to a breaking point. I will not tollerste baseless personal attacks and public shaming, nor should anyone else. Just last night, a West Cambridge resident discovered that their Wikipedia page had been vandalized to a point of border line libel. If we burn more bridges now, it will be harder to work together on other needed solutions in the future. I learned this the hard way during the Inman Square reconstruction debates. If we're going to help our friends and neighbors, we must return to civility. Charlesg. ZMarl in

Attachment F New 2 minutes to Council New 2 minutes to City Council I am not against an affordable housing plan that takes a common sense approach to non-residents who wish to live in Cambridge, but in my opinion the Affordable Housing Overlay is not that plan. The Overlay plan of doing away with all the current zoning that has been established over the decades I've been here is extremely undemocratic to all the neighborhoods affected and is the equivalent of trying to fix a stopwatch with a sledge hammer. Current Cambridge residents have purchased properties here knowing what the zoning and context of their specific neighborhood is. This has been a long understood concept of property ownership in the United States, but now the Affordable Housing Overlay proponents want Cambridge residents to agree to a plan that is completely different. The fact that many people want to live in a particular place may be a crisis for them individually but that doesn't make it a crisis for the community in which they want to live. I would love to live in NYC, but can't afford it. That may make it a crisis for me, but not necessarily for NYC. I do believe, however that this Overlay plan WILL create a housing crisis for those of us who already reside here. I believe that housing developers wrote this Overlay plan based on their needs. If the Zoning Overlay is passed, will the City be granting public funds to these developers? Also my understanding is that the city even wants to extend that opportunity to any developer that agrees to build affordable housing. Has anyone seen a plan from any of these developers in Cambridge? And will these plans be made public? Finally, I am not against affordable housing, but I am against a plan that takes a sledge hammer to all current zoning before we who already live here know what's going up next door. Bob Camacho CASADE, VOT Page 1

Attachment G The problem we're ALL trying to solve is the very rapid increase in rents here, caused by the ever-increasing demand from super-high-salaried workers moving in...resulting in thousands of current tenants displaced....and so very many on the city's affordable housing list. Those who think a zoning proposal is the answer have admitted that no more than 100 units a year would be built by new zoning! But that's obviously just a drop in a huge bucket of need. And building just 100 new units will take too long to help. My far simpler and faster answer: Let's start subsidizing rents immediately. Let's just set up The Cambridge Rent Scholarship Fund, based on merit and need, run just as state-college scholarships are: decided by independent admissions officers, not politicians or just by who signed up first on a long-hidden waiting list. Let's increase our affordable-housing budget by 20% for 2020.. and keep doing that every year. 20% of your already-planned $20 million is $4 million....divided by 12 months...and then divided by, say, a $2,000 per month average rent subsidy = 166 very worthy tenant families a year....who get help renting another place here in Cambridge immediately. And our new Cambridge Homeownership Second Mortgage Plan would he self- financed (after start-up costs) giving those who prefer to own a perfect solution. Make sense? Fred Meyer, 83 Hammond Street •

Text 4/25/2019 Altachment # In my initial review of the new amendment revisions, virtually all of the defects I have identified remain. I contend the current draft not ready for prime time as zoning for the City of Cambridge. I understand that the town of Arlington has withdrawn their upzoning because of divisions in the town and an inability to assemble the votes necessary for passage. In Cambridge, a new attempt should be made to achieve a better, more productive, more cost-efficient and less divisive housing program. A City that cannot publish its own completed master plan is unworthy of 2 having citizen support for a complex, radical, and indeed revolutionary zoning document that desperately needs more thought and planning. 3. add. Herrey The document should not have been city-wide. It should not have abandoned Floor Area Ratios as a measure of density. It should instead have considered alternatives that would have spent the taxpayers dollars more efficiently to ensure an effective program for Affordable Housing. If the Overlay zoning were to be as successful as some proponents claim, it would run the risk of bankrupting the City with public subsidies of $200,000 or more per unit. 6 The other extreme is that an increment of $5 million in additional funding this coming year will generate only 25 new units, which is a drop in The CDD FAQ # 27b the bucket to resolve the problems of Cambridge housing. claims that "The Envision Cambridge planning process has developed a goal of I have no way of verifying this creating 3,175 units to be affordable." claim because the Envision Cambridge report has not been released to the public. Fair Treatnet. add Charles Franklin. The City Council should have seen to it that the Envision report was made available months ago, and despite repeated appeals from me has not done so. With any decision to go City-wide with such a defective zoning proposal, I would fully expect that there would be a ten-citizen legal appeal to overturn the Council's decision and require a better process to respond to our Laffordable housing challenge in Cambridge. 191 Hamilta Street. 1/1 chrome-extension://mmfbcljfglbokpmkimbfghdkjmjhdgbg/index.html

AttachmentI Date: April 25, 2019 Cambridge City Council Housing Committee From: Josh Cohen Affordable Housing Overlay Comments My name is Josh Cohen. I live at 276 Huron Avenue. My wife, Margo, and I have two kids enrolled at Amigos. Personally and professionally, 1 am an advocate for affordable housing. (My company doesn't own in Cambridge and isn't exploring any sites here.) I believe deeply that affordable housing is a critical public policy issue. The Overlay is a great idea for three reasons: it promotes economic justice, it is an innovative tool, and it can help address climate change. First, economic justice. It is not fair that certain areas of our city will forever be off limits to people of low and moderate incomes. The 2019 60% AMI for a 3-person household is $64,000. These are working households who deserve places to live here in Cambridge - access to our schools, public transportation, and thriving economy. Second, innovative tool: when property owners sell to developers in this super-hot Cambridge market, sellers want three things: price, speed, and certainty. Typically, affordable housing can't offer even one of the three. The Overlay helps with all three. Price, because by giving affordable developers more density, we give them a chance to match the market price. Speed, because by giving affordable housing a chance to be built as-of-right, we dramatically speed up the time from a P&s to a closing. And certainty, because sellers will know that the City is fully behind the creation of affordable housing and will provide the subsidy to make these deals happen. These deals are - by definition - economically infeasible. They require subsidy from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust. The Overlay deliberately shifts some of the control over affordable housing from abutters, who have a well-documented history of opposing affordable housing, to CDD and the Third, climate policy. The Overlay maintains the City's Section 22 Green Building Requirements. When timber is harvested sustainably, wood-frame, energy-efficient buildings can help draw down carbon from the atmosphere. The trees eat the carbon dioxide, and we build our buildings out of trees. In this way, our multifamily production policy becomes a core part of our carbon policy. And when we build affordable multifamily in Cambridge, we are building transit-oriented housing that takes cars off the roads. Thank you for your time.

Attachment J Crane, Paula From: Rev Ellis I Washington < [email removed]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 4:31 PM Clerk To: Rev. Lorraine Thornhill; Marilyn Weekes; Henry Johnson Cc: Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Subject: Attachments: СВРА Affordable Housing.pdf Attention City Clerk: Please find attached a letter from the CBPA (Cambridge Black Pastors Alliance) we would like to submit to the City Council and would ask that the letter be distributed to Council prior to tonight's meeting. I would also like to be added to the list of speakers for tonight's meeting, please, so that I may read the letter. Thanks, Pastor Ellis Washington Ellis I. Washington, Pastor/Teacher The 55th Pastor of St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church 37/85 Bishop Richard Allen Drive Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 [phone removed] Ext. 101 (Church) [email removed] Please consider a donation to St. Paul. You can use this link. https://onrealm.org/StPaulsAMEChurch/Give/VCZFNTWKIT

CBPA Rev. Henry Johnson, Vice-President Rev. Dr. Marilyn Weekes, Treasurer Bishop Brian Greene, Chaplain Rev. Brenda Brown, General Secretary Rev. Lorraine Thornhill, President April 25, 2019 Distinguished Members of the Cambridge City Council and Concerned Citizens: AFFORDABLE HOUSING in CAMBRIDGE is near and dear to the heart of our diverse constituents, and their families, friends, and colleagues who live or serve throughout the City of CAMBRIDGE and beyond, from young adults to senior citizens. Therefore, it is CRITICAL and must be a PRIORITY that city zoning ordinances be enhanced and updated to be aligned with the stated will of the City to expand opportunities for Affordable Housing. Greater flexibility in the zoning system is necessary for more timely and efficient action on behalf of the citizens of the City of CAMBRIDGE. WHY AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW ACROSS THE CITY? "HOUSING IN CAMBRIDGE IS GETTING LESS AFFORDABLE." According to the OVERLAY HOUSING PETITION "A family must earn over $125,000 per year to afford to rent a 3-bedroom home at market rate." The median household income in 2017 reached only $83,122. Affordable housing across the City of CAMBRIDGE is important for improving and sustaining the economic vitality of CAMBRIDGE both now and for the future of this City to attract the everyday kinds of folk that help make this great CITY run daily, such as the teachers, firefighters, social workers, and others. According to the Overlay report, no more than 20% of teachers who work in CAMBRIDGE live in CAMBRIDGE. This statistic alone demonstrates the high costs associated with living in this city. Affordable housing is essential for the holistic well-being of the diverse families at-large who live throughout the City. It is also crucial for the vibrant young adult population served by this cosmopolitan city. The median age in Cambridge in 2017 was 30! If we envision these young adults choosing to lay stake in the ground and socially invest in CAMBRIDGE in whatever neighborhood they so choose, then together we will see the urgency to no longer delay a viable Affordable Housing zoning plan for CAMBRIDGE. Dealing with this problem now is also critical in addressing many of the failures of discriminatory housing plans and practices in the past, as well as ensuring a more balanced and equitable housing landscape for Cambridge's future. Affordable housing must not be relegated to certain geographic pockets but should be distributed throughout the entire City of Cambridge. This is a matter of fairness and justice in housing. We urge you all to put into practice the progressive ideals of equality and social justice.

Attachment K :... DEAR HOUSING COMMITTEE: I PUPPORT MY NAME IS PAWEL LATAMEC. I AM A RENTER, ' AM AN IMMIGRANTI AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY. I WANTED TO GIVE I'VE HEARD SOME FOLKS SAY THAT CAMBRIDGE IS FULL, YoU ALL A FEELING FOR WHAT "FULL" MEANS TO YOUNG FAMILIES LIKE MINE. I LIVE IN A 1- BEPROOM AND WHEN WE APARTMENT WITH MY WIFE AND 6o DOG. EXPAND auk FAMILY TO HAVE CHILDREN, WE FULLY EXPECT TO STAY IN OUR 1-BEPRUOM APARTMENT. You MAY ScOff AND DISMISS THIS AS WISHFUL THINKING, BUT THiS 15 EXACTLY THE PREVIOUS TENANTS WERE: PARENTS, PET, AND TODPLER. NOW, WE ARE WELL-PAID WHITE COLLAR PROPERIONALS, AND WE ARE PUSHED TO LIVE BECAUSE ITS UNWILLINGNESS TU BUILD HOUSING "FULL" IN CAMBRIDGE PRECISELY AND WILLINGNESS TO PRIVILEDGE LANPOWNING INTERESTS. YET, WE ARE LUCKY, WE ARE "SECURE" AND CAN CONTEMPLATE RAISING CHILDREN IN CAMBRIDGE. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE STRAIN THAT FAMILIES THAT RELY ON SUBSIDIZED HOUSING MUST FEEL, THE FAMILIES THAT THIS OVERLAY WILL HELP BY PROVIDING A HOME. I URGE THE COMMITTEE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AS A FORMAL ZONING ORPINANCE, THANK YoU FOR YOUR TIME. PAWEL LATAWIEC 2 EARHART ST UNIT 409

Attachment L Dominick Jones, 6 Hurlbut Street No one at the recent Housing Committee meetings seemed to be clear what form based coding is. It was being cited by City officials as the exclusive reward for 100% affordable housing developers. Essentially, form based coding ... views how the city develops... block by block,... artery by artery,.. neighborhood by neighborhood... but not by individual lot restrictions as at present. Paris, Washington, Manhattan and even parts of Boston were designed on this idea. It could be very good for ... this city. It could provide affordable housing simply by increasing the ..supply of housing. Successful high tech cities always generate the need for affordable housing. We need to plan this city ... as a whole, not by bribing certain developers on a piecemeal basis. •.. And the public should know what is being debated, which it does not at the moment. The overlay should therefore be dropped. Even city officials think it might have minimal impact. Instead, Form based coding should be studied as a better solution to affordable housing by encouraging all developers to build in a beautifully re-designed city. [email removed]

Attachment M April 25, 2019 Cambridge Housing Committee Last night at town meeting, Arlington's upzoning proposal was withdrawn for lack of votes. Perhaps Residents for Responsible Redevelopment forced officials to look at the fine print and loopholes. Maybe the plan was too vague. Lost in this Cambridge shuffle is the concept that the city has more than one constituency, and building at any cost is irresponsible. What gets imposed today will affect EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT- both owners and the 60% renters who are being forced out for luxury units and the housing list gets longer and neighbors move out. This is a self-perpetuating vicious cycle. The Overlay is too misleading in its promises to desperate people. 100 units per year can be found faster in additions, basements, possible down payments, mortgages, and an extra $20 Million. But, this plan ignores the fine print. Not all building problems are caused by abutters. There are code violations, deed issues and other unforeseen issues that contribute. Therefore, "as of right" wouldn't necessarily make building easier. Form-based code needs to be applied city-wide, not just spot-zoned and there has to be as many as 25 design patterns for neighborhood context according to the experts. Fix the zoning we have now, don't throw it away. All these houses on your placards were built under our current zoning which is producing more. This Plan is still baby-stepping despite the last minute changes the day before a public hearing. Really? This lumbering OVERLAY CANNOT MOVE FORWARD without proper due process and transparency. Otherwise, the plan will fail and we ALL pay the price for little gain. Marilee Meyer + 10 Dana St + [email removed] + [phone removed]

Attachment N Cambridge City Council Housing Committee April 16, 2019 Testimony My name is Tina Alu and I live at 113½ Pleasant Street. I am testifying as a Cambridge resident and as the Director of Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee (CEOC.) I am here in support of voting the Affordable Housing Overlay out of Committee to the Ordinance Committee. It s bittersweet to testity here tonight. Each time 1 wrote my testimony in the past, l lways asked myself what would Cheryl-Ann think. Tonight I decided to start witi some of her comments instead of mine. Because she always said it better! She said: "The 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay would apply city wide so that we can create new affordable homes in all areas of the city. This would include "high resource areas" that have historically excluded lower-income renter households and people of color ("those people") and make them accessible to both families who are subsidized and unsubsidized, who want to move to or stay in Cambridge. As a community, we do not view proposed zoning and community development decisions through an affordable housing or racial equity lens but through the lens of local control and decision-making by abutters. It's worth asking, whose views, benefits, and burdens, do we prioritize?" This Saturday, I will be attending the last of the Digging Deep sessions focused on race, equity, and inclusion. This final session will focus on reviewing the themes that have emerged throughout the series and reflect on what actions and next steps we can each begin to take individually and as a City. Iknow I will see many of you there. I ask you all to think about what next steps you will take in your role as a City Councilor to increase the equity in the City. Equity is defined as fairness in procedures, processes, and the distribution of resources. Equity exists when disparities in the outcomes experienced by historically under-represented populations have been eliminated. Equity requires changing structures of power and privilege. One step you could take is to vote to move the Affordable Housing Overlay to the Ordinance Committee. It is one step toward making Cambridge a more diverse, inclusive and equitable City.

Allachment o WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY Affordable Housing Overlay - WORKING DRAFT ADD NEW DEFINITIONS TO ARTICLE 2.000: Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). A set of modified development standards set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance intended to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Dwelling Unit. A dwelling unit within an AHO Project for which occupancy is restricted to an AHO Eligible Household and whose rent or initial sale price is established by the provisions of Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Eligible Household. A household whose gross household income does not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance. Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Project. The construction of a new building or buildings and/or the modification of an existing building or buildings resulting in single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily dwellings within which each dwelling unit is an AHO Dwelling Unit subject to the standards and restrictions set forth in Section 11.207 of this Zoning Ordinance. Grade. The mean finished grade ground elevation of a lot measured either around the entire perimeter of the building or along any existing wall facing a public street, which grade ground elevation is maintained naturally without any structural support. Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. Story Above Grade. A story whose highest point is more than 4 feet above the Grade. CREATE NEW SECTION: 11.207 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY 1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Section is to promote the public good by supporting the development of housing that is affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. The intent of this Section is to allow increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income (referred to as "AHO Projects," as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance); to incentivize the reuse of existing buildings in order to create AHO Projects that are more compatible with established neighborhood character; to promote the city's urban design objectives while enabling AHO Projects to be permitted as-of-right, subject to non-binding advisory design consultation procedures; and to apply such standards throughout the City, to promote city planning goals of achieving greater socioeconomic diversity and a more equitable distribution of affordable housing citywide. 2. Applicability Page 1 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (a) The provisions set forth in this Section shall apply to the creation, enlargement, or alteration of AHO Projects, as defined in Article 2.000 of this Zoning Ordinance, in all zoning districts except Open Space Districts. fa)(b) An AHO Project shall meet all of the standards set forth in this Affordable Housing Overlay, or else it shall be subject to the requirements otherwise applicable in the zoning district. 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sale Price for AHO Dwelling Units (a) All dwelling units in an AHO Project shall comply with the standards for AHO Dwelling Units as set forth in this Section. (b) For all AHO Dwelling Units: (i) AHO Dwelling Units shall be rented or sold only to AHO Eligible Households, with preference given to Cambridge residents, in accordance with standards and procedures related to selection, asset limits, and marketing established by the Community Development Department. (ii) AHO Dwelling Units shall be created and conveyed subject to recorded covenants approved by the Community Development Department guaranteeing the permanent availability of the AHO Dwelling Units for AHO Eligible Households. (c) For rental AHO Dwelling Units: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (i) At least eighty percent (80%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be occupied by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (iii) Rent, including utilities and any other fees routinely charged to tenants and approved by the Community Development Department, shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross household income of the AHO Eligible Household occupying the AHO Dwelling Unit or other similar standard pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. (iv) After initial occupancy, the gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household shall be verified annually, or on such other basis required by an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department periodically-to determine continued eligibility and rent, in accordance with policies, standards, and procedures established by the Community Development Department. (v) An AHO Eligible Household may continue to rent an AHO Dwelling Unit after initial occupancy even if the AHO Eligible Household's gross household income exceeds the eligibility limits set forth above, but may not exceed one hundred twenty percent (120%) of AMI for more than one year after that Eligible Household's gross household income has been verified to exceed such percentage, unless otherwise restricted pursuant to an applicable housing subsidy program which has been approved by the Community Development Department. Page 2 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (vi) Notwithstanding the requirements set forth in (i) through (v) above, an owner may voluntarily choose to charge a lower rent than as provided herein for AHO Dwelling Units. (d) For owner-occupied AHO Dwelling Units: (i) The gross household income of an AHO Eligible Household upon initial occupancy shall be no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI. (ii) At least fifty percent (50%) of AHO Dwelling Units shall be sold to by AHO Eligible Households whose gross household income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (iii) The initial sale price of an AHO Dwelling Unit shall be approved by the Community Development Department and shall be determined to ensure that the monthly housing payment (which shall include debt service at prevailing mortgage loan interest rates, utilities, condominium or related fees, insurance, real estate taxes, and parking fees, if any) shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of: 1. A household earning ninety percent (90%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more than one-hundred percent (100%) of AMI; or 2. A household earning seventy percent (70%) of AMI, in the case of an AHO Dwelling Unit to be sold to an AHO Eligible Household whose income upon initial occupancy is no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI. (e) An AHO Project meeting the standards set forth herein as approved by the Community Development Department shall not be required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Requirements set forth in 11.203 of this Zoning Ordinance. 4. Use (a) In all zoning districts, an AHO Project may contain single-family, two-family, townhouse, or multifamily dwellings as-of-right. Townhouse and Multifamily Special Permit procedures shall not apply. (b) An AHO Project may contain active non-residential uses on the ground floor as they may be permitted as-of-right in the base zoning district or the overlay districts) that are applicable to a lot, which for the purpose of this Section shall be limited to Institutional Uses listed in Section 4.33, Office Uses listed in Section 4.34, and Retail and Consumer Service uses listed in Section 4.35 that provide services to the general public. 5. Development Standards 5.1 General Provisions (a) For the purposes of this Section, the phrase "District Development Standards" shall refer to the development standards of the base zoning district as they may be modified by the development standards of all overlay districts that are applicable to a lot, but not the Page 3 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY standards set forth within this Affordable Housing Overlay, and shall include standards that are permitted as-of-right or allowable by special permit. (b) For an AHO Project, the following development standards shall apply as-of-right in place of the more restrictive District Development Standards, except as otherwise stated. Where the District Development Standards for any type of use are less restrictive than the standards set forth below, such less restrictive development standards shall apply as-of-right to an AHO Project. (c) An AHO Project that conforms to the following development standards shall not be subject to other limitations that may be set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning Ordinance, including limitations on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot area per dwelling unit, except as otherwise stated in this Section. 5.2 Dimensional Standards for AHO Projects 5.2.1 Building Height and ScaleStories Above Grade (a) On lots wWhere the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less, an AHO Project shall contain no more than four Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 45 feet, as measured from existing Grade. For AHO Projects containing active non-residential uses on the ground floor, the maximum height may be increased to 50 feet but the number of Stories Above Grade shall not exceed four stories. (b)_On lots wWhere the District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of more than 40 feet, an AHO Project shall contain no more than seven Stories Above Grade and shall have a maximum height of 80 feet, as measured from existing Grade, except as further limited below. Portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of a district whose District Dimensional Standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less shall be reduced to a maximum of five Stories Above Grade and a maximum height of 60 feet, as measured from existing Grade, except where the building abuts a non-residential use. (b) An AHO Project exceeding 80 feet in height shall be subject to all District Dimensional Standards. (c) Each Story Above Grade shall have a minimum height of 10 feet. Yard Setbacks 5.2.2 (a) For the purpose of this Section, the applicable District Dimensional Standards shall not include yard setback requirements based on a formula calculation as provided in Section 5.24.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, but shall include non-derived minimum yard setback requirements set forth in Article 5.000 or other Sections of this Zoning Ordinance. Page 4 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (b) An AHO Project shall have a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. However, the front yard setback may be reduced to the average of the front yard setbacks of the pre-existing buildings on the lots adjacent thereto the on either side, if such average is less than the front yard setback otherwise required. (c) An AHO Project shall have a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. (d) An AHO Project shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet, except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement. (e) Projecting eaves, chimneys, bay windows, balconies, open fire escapes and like projections which do not project more than 3.5 feet from the principal exterior wall plane, and unenclosed steps, unroofed porches and the like which do not project more than ten (10) feet beyond the line of the foundation wall and which are not over four (4) feet above Grade, may extend beyond the minimum yard setback. (f) Bicycle parking spaces, whether short-term or long-term, and appurtenant structures such as coverings, sheds, or storage lockers may be located within a required yard setback. 5.2.3 Open Space (a) Except where the District Dimensional Standards establish a less restrictive requirement or as otherwise provided below, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area for an AHO Project shall be 30%. However, the minimum percentage of open space to lot area may be reduced to no less than 15% if at least one of the following criteria is met: An area commensurate with such reduction is used to provide off-street surface (i) parking spaces on the lot along with necessary driveways and access aisles. The AHO project-Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing (ii) building included on the State Register of Historic Places. (b) The required open space shall be considered Private Open Space but shall net-be subject to the limitations set forth below and shall not be subject to the dimensiona! and other limitations set forth in Section 5.22 of this Zoning Ordinance. Private Open Space shall exclude parking and driveways for automobiles. (b)(c) At least half of the required open space shall meet the definition of Permeable Open Space as set forth in this Zoning Ordinance. (c)(d) All of the required open space shall be located at Grade or on porches and decks that are no higher than the floor elevation of the lowest Story Above Grade. No more than half of the required percentage of Open space may be located at higher levels-more than 10 feet above Grade, such as balconies, and decks, and roofsbut Page 5 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY shall not count toward meeting the required Private Open Space for the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay. fear The required open space shall be considered Private Open Space but shall-net be subject te the dimensienat and other limitations set ferth in Sectien 5.22 of this Zening Ordinance. (e) For the purpose of this Affordable Housing Overlay, area used for covered or uncovered bicycle parking spaces that are not contained within a building shall be considered Private Open Space, but shall not be considered Permeable Open Space. 5.3 Standards for Existing Buildings A building that is in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance and does not conform to the standards set forth above in this Affordable Housing Overlay may be altered, reconstructed, extended, and/or enlarged for use as an AHO Project as-of-right in accordance with the standards set forth below. Except as otherwise stated, the following standards shall apply to development contained within the envelope of the existing building, and enlargements or additions occurring outside the envelope of the existing building shall conform to the standards for new construction set forth above. (a) The modifications to a nonconforming structure allowed as-of-right or by special permit in Article 8.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be allowed as-of-right for an AHO Project. (b) Gross floor area may be added or reconstructed within the interior of the existing building, provided that the resulting number of Stories Above Grade is not more than the greater of the existing number of Stories Above Grade, the maximum number of stories permitted for new construction as set forth above, or the existing height of the building divided by 10 feet. (c) Insulation may be added to the exterior of an existing exterior wall to improve energy efficiency, provided that the resulting exterior plane of the wall shall either conform to the yard setback standards for an AHO project set forth above or shall not intrude more than eight (8) inches further into the existing yard setback. (d) An existing building may be moved to a new location on a lot, provided that the resulting height of the building above Grade at its new location shall be no greater than the height above Grade at its existing location, or the maximum building height permitted for an AHO Project as set forth above, whichever is greater, and also provided that the resulting yard setbacks shall not increase any nonconformance with the required yard setbacks set forth above for an AHO Project. (e) Where the existing amount of open space on the lot does not conform to the standards for an AHO Project set forth above, the existing amount of open space shall be the required amount. However, permitted alterations to the structure or lot including but not limited to moving the building footprint, installing exterior insulation, installing bicycle parking, or installing exterior features to improve accessibility may displace existing open space so long as such open space is reestablished elsewhere on the site to the extent possible and the Page 6 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY total amount of open space is not decreased from the existing condition by more than 5% or 100 square feet, whichever is greater. 6. Parking and Bicycle Parking The limitations set forth in Article 6.000 of this Zoning Ordinance shall be modified as set forth below for an AHO Project. 6.1 Required Off-Street Accessory Parking (a) Off-street parking shall be required at a minimum ratio of 0.4 space per AHO Dwelling Unit, except as further modified below. (b) Off-street parking shall not be required for an AHO Project on a lot that is located, in whole or in part, within one half-mile of a public rapid transit station or within one quarter-mile of a bus stop with a scheduled peak hour frequency of at least six buses per hour during 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:30 PM on weekdays. (c) The requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for AHO Dwelling Units created within existing buildings in existence as of the effective date of this Ordinance. In addition, the requirement for off-street parking spaces shall be waived for any new construction, in the form of additions or stand-alone buildings, of an AHO Project on a lot that also includes the preservation and protection of a building included on the State Register of Historic Places. (d) Where the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Affordable Housing Overlay would otherwise be four spaces or fewer, the requirement to provide off-street parking spaces shall be waived. 6.2 Accessory Parking Provided Off-Site (a) Off-street parking facilities may be shared by multiple AHO Projects, provided that the requirements of this Section are met by all AHO Dwelling Units served by the facility and the facility is within 1,000 feet of all AHO Projects that it serves. (b) Off-street parking facilities for an AHO Project may be located within existing parking facilities located within 1,000 feet of the AHO Project and in a district where parking is permitted as a principal use or where the facility is a pre-existing nonconforming principal use parking facility, provided that the owner of the AHO Project shall provide evidence of fee ownership, a long-term lease agreement or renewable short-term lease agreement, recorded covenant, or comparable legal instrument to guarantee, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Superintendent of Buildings, that such facilities will be available to residents of the AHO Project. 6.3 Modifications to Design and Layout Standards for Off-Street Parking (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.2, parking spaces may be arranged in tandem without requiring a special permit, provided that no more than two cars may be parked within any tandem parking space. Page 7 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.43.6, owners of adjacent properties may establish common driveways under mutual easements without requiring a special permit. (c) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(a), on-grade open parking spaces may be located within 10 feet but not less than 5 feet from a building wall on the same lot or an adjacent lot at the basement or first story without requiring a special permit, provided that such parking spaces are screened from buildings on abutting lots by a fence or dense plantings. (d) Notwithstanding Paragraph 6.44.1(b), on-grade open parking spaces and driveways may be located within 5 feet of a side or rear property line without requiring a special permit, provided that screening is provided in the form of a fence or dense plantings at the property line, unless such screening is waived by mutual written agreement of the owner of the lot and the owner of the abutting lot. 6.4 Modifications to Bicycle Parking Standards (a) Notwithstanding Section 6.104, long-term or short-term bicycle parking spaces may be located anywhere on the lot for an AHO Project or on an adjacent lot in common ownership or under common control. (b) Notwithstanding Section 6.107.5, up to 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces may be designed to meet the requirements for Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces, so long as they are covered from above to be protected from precipitation. (c) The requirement for short-term bicycle parking shall be waived where only four of fewer short-term bicycle parking spaces would otherwise be required. (d) The number of required bicycle parking spaces shall be reduced by half, up to a maximum reduction of 28 spaces, where a standard-size (19-dock) Public Bicycle Sharing Station is provided on the lot or by the developer of the AHO Project on a site within 500 feet of the lot, with the written approval of the City if located on a public street or other City property, or otherwise by legally enforceable mutual agreement with the owner of the land on which the station is located as approved by the Community Development Department. If additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station docks are provided, the number of required bicycle parking spaces may be further reduced at a rate of 0.5 bicycle parking space per additional Public Bicycle Sharing Station dock, up to a maximum reduction of half of the required number of spaces. (e) For AHO Dwelling Units created within an existing building, bicycle parking spaces meeting the standards of this Zoning Ordinance shall not be required but are encouraged to be provided to the extent practical given the limitations of the existing structure. Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, as required by this Zoning Ordinance, for dwelling units in an AHO Project that are constructed fully outside the envelope of the existing structure. 6.5 Transportation Demand Management An AHO Project whose parking requirements are waived pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall provide, in writing, to the Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management program containing the following measures, at a minimum: April 24, 2019 Page 8 of 14

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (a) Offering either a free annual membership in a Public Bicycle Sharing Service, at the highest available tier where applicable, or a 50% discounted MBTA combined subway and bus pass for three months or pass of equivalent value, to up to two individuals in each household upon initial occupancy of a unit. (b) Providing transit information in the form of transit maps and schedules to each household upon initial occupancy of a unit, or providing information and a real-time transit service screen in a convenient common area of the building such as an entryway or lobby. 7 Building and Site Design Standards for New Development 7.1 General Provisions (a) The following design standards shall apply to all AHO Projects. Except where otherwise stated, the Project Review requirements set forth in Article 19.000 of this Zoning Ordinance and any design standards set forth in Section 19.50 or elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply if the following standards are met; however, the design standards specific to the project area are encouraged to be met to the extent possible if they are not in conflict with the purpose of this Section. (b) The following design standards shall apply to new construction and to additions to existing structures. Except as otherwise provided, an existing building that is altered or moved to accommodate an AHO Project shall not be subject to the following standards, provided that such alterations do not create a condition that is in greater nonconformance with such standards than the existing condition. 7.2 Site Design and Arrangement (a) The area directly between the front lot line and the principal wall plane of the building nearest to the front lot line shall consist of any combination of landscaped area, hardscaped area accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists, and usable spaces such as uncovered porches, patios, or balconies. Parking and other motor vehicle uses, including service and loading facilities, shall not be located within such area, except for driveway access which shall be limited to a total of thirty (30) feet of width for any individual driveway for each one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage. (b) Pedestrian entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street, except where the building itself is not visible from the street due to its location. All pedestrian entrances shall be accessible by way of access routes that are separated from motor vehicle access drives. (c) A building footprint exceeding {200 300}250 feet in length, measured parallel to the street, shall contain portions that are set back by at least 40 feet in depth measured from and perpendicular to the front lot line and at least 40 feet in width measured parallel to the front lot line. 7.3 Building Façades (a) -At least 15% of the area of building façades facing a public street or public open space shall consist of transparent-clear glass windows. For buildings located in a Business A (BA), - Page 9 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY Business A-2 (BA-2), Business B (BB) or Business C (BC) zoning district, this figure shall be increased to 25%. (b) Building façades shall incorporate architectural elements that project or recess by at least two feet from the adjacent section of the facade. Such projecting or recessed elements shall occur on an average interval of 40 linear horizontal feet or less for portions of the façade directly facing a public street, and on an average interval of 80 linear horizontal feet or less for other portions of the facade. Such projecting or recessed elements shall not be required on the lowest Story Above Grade or on the highest Story Above Grade, and shall not be required on the highest two Stories Above Grade of a building containing at least six Stories Above Grade. The intent is to incorporate elements such as bays, balconies, cornices, shading devices, or similar architectural elements that promote visual interest and residential character, and to allow variation at the ground floor and on upper floors where a different architectural treatment may be preferable. (c) To provide additional visual interest to the façade, for window openings above the ground floor facing a public street or public open space, the developer is encouraged to include architectural elements that provide depth and/or surface relief such as recessed or projecting window surfaces, sills, sun shades, or shutters. 7.4 Ground Floors (a) The elevation at floor level of the ground floor of a building, meaning the lowest story above Grade, shall be at the mean Grade of the abutting public sidewalk, or above such mean Grade by not more than four feet. Where active non-residential uses are provided at the ground floor, the ground floor shall be accessible directly from the sidewalk without requiring use of stairs or a lift. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply if it is determined by the City Engineer that a higher ground floor elevation is necessary for the purpose of flood protection. (b) Where structured parking is provided within the ground floor of a building, the portion of the building immediately behind the front wall plane shall consist of residential units, common areas, or other populated portions of the building in order to screen the provided parking over at least 50% of the length of the façade measured parallel to the street. (c) The façade of a ground floor facing a public street shall consist of expanses no longer than 25 feet in length, measured parallel to the street, which contain no transparent windows or pedestrian entryways. (d) If the ground floor is designed to accommodate active non-residential uses, the following additional standards shall apply: (i) the height of the lowest story above Grade for that portion of the building containing active non-residential uses shall be at least 15 feet; (i) the depth of the space designed for active non-residential uses shall be at least 35 feet on average measured from the portion of the façade that is nearest to the front Page 10 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY lot line in a direction perpendicular to the street, and measured to at least one street in instances where the space abuts two or more streets; and (ili) that portion of the ground floor façade containing active non-residential uses shall consist of at least 50% transparent glass windows. (e) Ground floors shall be designed to accommodate at least one space for an active non- residential use on sites that are located in a Business base zoning district, and where the project site and at least one of the lots abutting the project site contains or has contained a retail and consumer service use at any point within the past two years. 7.5 Mechanical Equipment, Refuse Storage, and Loading Areas All mechanical equipment, refuse storage, or loading areas serving the building or its occupants that are (1) carried above the roof, (2) located at the exterior building wall or (3) located outside the building, shall meet the requirements listed below. Mechanical equipment includes, but is not limited to, ventilation equipment including exhaust fans and ducts, air conditioning equipment, elevator bulkheads, heat exchangers, transformers and any other equipment that, when in operation, potentially creates a noise detectable off the lot. The equipment and other facilities: (a) Shall not be located within any required setback. This Paragraph (a) shall not apply to electrical equipment whose location is mandated by a recognized public utility, provided that project plans submitted for review by the City identify a preferred location for such equipment. (b) When on the ground, shall be permanently screened from view from adjacent public streets that are within 100 feet of the building, or from the view from abutting property in separate ownership at the property line. The screening shall consist of densely planted shrubs or trees equal or greater in height at the time of installation than the equipment or facilities to be screened, or a fence of equal or greater height that is comparable in quality to the materials used on the principal facades of the building, with no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the face of the fence open. (c) When carried above the roof, shall be permanently screened from view, from the ground, from adjacent public streets and any abutting residentially used lot or lots in a residential zoning district. The screening shall be at least 50% opaque, uniformly distributed across the screening surface. (d) Shall meet all city, state and federal noise regulations, as applicable, as certified by a professional acoustical engineer if the Department of Inspectional Services deems such certification necessary. (e) That handle trash and other waste, shall be contained within the building or screened as required in this Section until properly disposed of. 7.6 Environmental Design Standards Page 11 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (a) This Section shall not waive the Green Building Requirements set forth in Section 22.20 of this Zoning Ordinance that may otherwise apply to an AHO Project. (b) Where the provisions of the Flood Plain Overlay District apply to an AHO Project, the performance standards set forth in Section 20.70 of this Zoning Ordinance shall apply; however, a special permit shall not be required. (c) An AHO Project shall be subject to other applicable laws, regulations, codes, and ordinances pertaining to environmental standards. (d). New outdoor light fixtures installed in an AHO Project shall be fully shielded and directed to prevent light trespass onto adjacent residential lots. 8 Advisory Design Consultation Procedure Prior to application for a building permit, the developer of an AHO Project shall comply with the following procedure, which is intended to provide an opportunity for non-binding community and staff input into the design of the project. (a) At least one community meeting shall be scheduled at a time and location that is convenient to residents in proximity to the project site. The Community Development Department (CDD) shall be notified of the time and location of such meeting, and shall give notification to each abutting property owner and to any individual or organization who each year files with CDD a written request for such notification, or to any other individual or organization CDD may wish to notify. The purpose of the community meeting(s) shall be to present preliminary project designs, answer questions from neighboring residents and other interested members of the public, and receive feedback on the design. The date(s), time(s), location(s), attendance, materials presented, and comments received at such meeting(s) shall be documented and provided to CDD. (b) Following one or more such community meeting(s), the developer shall prepare the following materials for review by the Planning Board. CDD shall review to certify that the submitted written and graphic materials provide the required information in sufficient detail. All drawings shall be drawn to scale, shall include a graphic scale and north arrow for orientation, and shall provide labeled distances and dimensions for significant building and site features. (1) A context map indicating the location of the project and surrounding land uses, including transportation facilities. (2) An existing conditions site plan depicting the boundaries of the lot, the locations of buildings, open space features, parking areas, trees, and other major site features on the lot and abutting lots, and the conditions of abutting streets. (3) A proposed conditions site plan depicting the same information above as modified to depict the proposed conditions, including new buildings (identifying building entrances and uses on the ground floor) and major anticipated changes in site features. (4) Floor plans of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot. Page 12 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY (5) Elevations and cross-section drawings of all proposed new buildings and existing buildings to remain on the lot, depicting the distances to lot lines and the heights of surrounding buildings, and labeling the proposed materials on each façade elevation. (6) A landscape plan depicting and labeling all hardscape, permeable, and vegetated areas proposed for the site along with other structures or appurtenances on the site. (7) Plans of parking and bicycle parking facilities, as required by Section 6.50 of this Zoning Ordinance. (8) Materials palettes cataloguing and depicting with photographs the proposed façade and landscape materials. (9) Existing conditions photographs from various vantage points on the public sidewalk, including photos of the site and of the surrounding urban context. (10)Proposed conditions perspective renderings from a variety of vantage points on the public sidewalk, including locations adjacent to the site as well as longer views if proposed buildings will be visible from a distance. (11)A dimensional form, in a format provided by CDD, along with any supplemental materials, summarizing the general characteristics of the project and demonstrating compliance with applicable zoning requirements. (12)A brief project narrative describing the project and the design approach, and indicating how the project has been designed in relation to the citywide urban design objectives set forth in Section 19.30 of the Zoning Ordinance, any design guidelines that have been established for the area, and design guidelines established for AHO Projects in Cambridge. (c) Within 65 days of receipt of a complete set of materials by CDD, the Planning Board shall schedule a design consultation as a general business matter at a public meeting. The materials shall be made available to the public in advance, and the Planning Board may receive written comments prior to the meeting from City staff and from the general public. (d) At the scheduled design consultation, the Planning Board shall hear a presentation of the proposal from the developer and comments from the public. The Board may ask questions or seek additional information from the developer or from City staff. (e) The Planning Board shall evaluate the proposal for general compliance with the requirements of this Section, for consistency with City development guidelines prepared for the proposal area and for AHO Projects in general, for appropriateness in terms of other planned or programmed public or private development activities in the vicinity, and for consistency with the Citywide Urban Design Objectives set forth in Section 19.30. The Board may also suggest specific project adjustments and alterations to further the purposes of this Ordinance. The Planning Board shall communicate its findings in a written report provided to the developer and to CDD within 20 days of the design consultation. (f) The Planning Beard shall communicate its findings in a written repert provided to the developer and to-CĐD within 20 days of the design censultatien The developer may then make revisions to Page 13 of 14 April 24, 2019

WORKING DRAFT FOR REVIEW ONLY the design, in consultation with CDD staff, and shall submit a revised set of documents along with a narrative summary of to-the Planning Board's comments and changes made in response to those comments. (#(g) to The Planning Board shall review and discuss the revised documents at a second design consultation meeting, which shall proceed in accordance with Paragraphs (c) and (d) above. Following the second design consultation, the Planning Board may submit a revised and re- submit its-report and either the revised report or if there are no revisions the initial report shall become the final report (the "Final Report"). Any additional design consultations to review further revisions may occur only at the discretion and on the request of the developer. (g)(h) The final Report from the Planning Board shall be provided to the Superintendent of Buildings to certify compliance with the procedures set forth herein. 9 Implementation of Affordable Housing Overlay (a) The City Manager shall have the authority to promulgate regulations for the implementation of the provisions of this Section 11.207. There shall be a thirty-day review period, including a public meeting, to receive public comments on draft regulations before final promulgation. (b) The Community Development Department may develop standards and procedures appropriate to and consistent with the provisions of this Sections 11.207 and the above regulations. 910 Enforcement of Affordable Housing Overlay The Community Development Department shall certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all applicable provisions of this Section have been met before issuance of any building permit for any AHO Project, and shall further certify in writing to the Superintendent of Buildings that all documents have been filed and all actions taken necessary to fulfill the requirements of this Section before the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any such project. Page 14 of 14 April 24, 2019

Attachment P City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal Consolidated List of Frequently Asked Questions (as of April 24, 2019) Page List of FAQS .....4 INTRODUCTION.. ...............4 1. Why does Cambridge need an Affordable Housing Overlay?......................... ........... 2. What is the Affordable Housing Overlay? 4 QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW THE OVERLAY WOULD WORK. ..A 3. What does "as-of-right" mean? Why is this part of the proposal? 4. Why does the plan propose a shift from a FAR to Form-Based Design approach? What does a Form- ...5 Based Approach mean? How does a form-based approach impact scale, volume and density?... 5. How will design review happen? Would this proposal mean that abutters have no say in the process?...... ...5 ...6 6. Who would be able to take advantage of this zoning overlay?.... 7. What would prevent for-profit developers from coming in, tearing down a building, building a newer, larger building under what would now be allowed under the Affordable Housing Overlay, and 6 then converting to market-rate luxury housing? 8. Does the Overlay create two sets of rules, one for non-profit developers and one for for-profit ..6 developers? Can we limit eligibility of the zoning overlay to non-profit developers only?.. . 6 QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPOSED OVERLAY DESIGN PROVISIONS 9. What are the proposed front yard setback requirements? Could the minimum front setback be ....6 reduced to match the setbacks of existing adjacent buildings? ...7 10. What height restrictions are being proposed? Will transitions between districts be required?.. ..7 11. How would the Overlay impact open space in the community?. ..7 12. What are the provisions for street level retail space in the Affordable Housing Overlay? ..7 QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPACT ON EXISTING STRUCTURES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ..7 13. How would the Overlay interact with historic requirements? ...7 14. The Overlay references the State Historic Register. What does this mean?... ............8 15. Would the Overlay allow the conversion of an existing house to individual units?... 16. Could a developer re-use an existing building and also build new housing on the same site, through an addition or separate structure? How would this work? ...8

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ ...8 17. Can buildings be torn down? ...8 18. Will building be torn down? ...8 QUESTIONS REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN DESIGN.. 8 19. What will the green building requirements be? 20. How will recommendations from the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force interact with the new Affordable Housing Overlay? Will recommendations from the Task Force be incorporated into the 9 zoning? 21. Could affordable housing developed under the overlay be required to comply with the City's new Net Zero requirements in advance of when these new requirements are scheduled to take effect for all ..9 residential development? ...9 QUESTIONS ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING .. ...9 22. What is affordable housing?.... 23. Who lives in affordable housing and how are they chosen? How do we ensure they are eligible? Is 9 this how the process would work for housing developed under the Overlay? 24. What does an income limit mean? Would a single person earning less than $56,000 be eligible for any housing created under the Affordable Housing Overlay? . 10 .. 10 25. What does 100%-affordable mean? Would mixed-income be better?.. ...10 26. How is affordability maintained over the long-term? What are the mechanics? 27. What % of Cambridge's housing stock is currently affordable? How has that changed? What is the goal? How will this proposal help achieve that goal? ..11 28. How much local subsidy is needed to produce a unit of affordable housing? How much is appropriated annually? Based on this, can we estimate how many units could be expected to be 11 created annually? .. 11 29. What is the Affordable Housing Trust and what role would it play if any? . 11 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE - WHAT CAN WE EXPECT? 30. Can the City prepare case studies of potential projects? Can staff produce models or provide photos of how the Overlay might work?….... 12 31. I am concerned that this will destroy neighborhoods. What would prevent people from tearing 12 down their homes and building much larger structures? 32. How does this proposal relate to the Envision Cambridge population projections? Will the Affordable Housing Overlay result in an increase in population? 12 12 33. How many affordable units per year would be expected with this Overlay? 12 34. Can we identify parcels or site types where the Overlay will be applied? 35. Is it true that developers would tear down any existing building in order to maximize density on the lot?....... ....13 36. Is it true that the majority of the units created will be small units, such as studios and . 13 one bedrooms, in order to make development feasible? Page 2 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ . 13 OTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE OVERLAY 37. If this proposal is not increasing the amount of affordable housing that could otherwise be built, ...13 why is the Overlay being proposed? ............ 38. Will any housing developers actually take advantage of the Affordable Housing Overlay? It does .. 13. not appear that it would provide profits to the developer, or even be financially feasible 39. Why not limit the Affordable Housing Overlay to the corridors and areas of the city where there is .. 14 already more density? ... 40. Can we require that housing developed under the overlay include a middle-income component? 14 Can we expand eligibility up to 120% AMI? . 41. Can we require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay includes a ... 14 homeownership component?..... 42. Will the Overlay provisions require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay . 14 includes family-sized requirement? …... . 14 43. Can the Overlay eliminate the need for curb cut approvals by the City Council? .14 44. Should this be called an overlay if it applies to the whole city? Page 3 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ INTRODUCTION 1. Why does Cambridge need an Affordable Housing Overlay? It has become increasingly challenging for affordable housing providers to build new affordable housing in new buildings with public funding which are 100%-affordable. Cambridge residents have growing concerns about displacement and increasing rents and have consistently ranked the lack of affordable housing as an area of significant concern. For many years, the City has made creating and preserving affordable housing a priority goal. However, several factors make the goal of creating new affordable housing increasingly challenging to achieve: a. Land and construction costs continue to climb b. Cuts at the federal level have reduced funding for housing (despite increased funding at the City level) C. The current zoning requirements for areas where it is feasible to build new affordable housing. For example, in many neighborhoods, zoning does not allow multifamily housing and imposes requirements such as density limits, dimensional constraints, and parking requirements that are especially burdensome for affordable housing projects. 2. What is the Affordable Housing Overlay? The proposal is to create a citywide zoning overlay to enable 100%-affordable housing developments to better compete with market-rate development. For 100%-affordable projects that meet the requirements of the Affordable Housing Overlay, this would allow the following: a. Increased density allowance through a form-based zoning approach that sets limits on the allowed height and number of stories in a building and provides clear dimensional standards (setbacks, open space) and other requirements rather than limiting the number of housing units allowed by imposing floor area ratios and a lot area per dwelling unit ratio b. Multi-family and townhouse developments in areas where they are not currently allowed c. Conversion of larger residential buildings to affordable multifamily housing d. Development under the AHO provisions is as-of-right and does not require discretionary zoning relief (i.e., a special permit or variance), but there would be an advisory consultation process to gather community input and receive non-binding design review by the Planning Board The Overlay will help the City's affordable housing partners pursue new opportunities to create affordable housing in all neighborhoods by allowing affordable housing developers to build larger buildings than would otherwise be allowed and streamlining the permitting process to allow 100%-affordable housing developments to move to construction more quickly to help reduce development costs and use public funding more effectively. QUESTIONS REGARDING HOW THE OVERLAY WOULD WORK 3. What does "as-of-right" mean? Why is this part of the proposal? a. Fundamentally, the Zoning Ordinance regulates what types of development are allowed and what types are not, based on characteristics such as the use and dimensions of a building or site. A Page 4 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ development that meets all zoning requirements is considered "as-of-right" and may proceed to obtain a building permit. For a variety of reasons, many projects in Cambridge are not "as-of- right" because they do not meet all zoning requirements and they require special permits or variances from the Planning Board or the Board of Zoning Appeal. b. Affordable housing projects tend to be infeasible in many parts of the city under current zoning and therefore, need special permits and/or variances to be developed. State law (Chapter 40B) allows a streamlined comprehensive permit process for affordable housing projects seeking special permits and variances, but even though the process is streamlined, applicants still must go through a permitting process before the Board of Zoning Appeal. Comprehensive permits (like special permits and variances) are also subject to appeals that can add significant costs, take years to resolve, and tie up resources and capacity of affordable housing developers while they are pending. The time, cost, and uncertainty of the process makes it more challenging for affordable housing projects to secure outside funding commitments and adds to the challenge of competing with market-rate developers to acquire usable sites. c. The goal of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to set out clear and predictable requirements for affordable housing projects throughout the city. These requirements would be more permissive than current zoning but would still set specific limitations based on project scale and other development characteristics. Projects would be approved and could proceed in a predictable way if they meet the requirements. 4. Why does the plan propose a shift from a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to Form-Based Design approach? What does a Form-Based Approach mean? How does a form-based approach impact scale, volume and density? a. A form-based approach to zoning is one that primarily regulates the type and scale of buildings allowed in an area, rather than relying on density metrics such as FAR and lot area per dwelling unit. In this case, affordable housing projects would be regulated based on the number of stories allowed, along with overall height limits, setback and open space requirements, and other standards for building and site design. b. The intent of the proposal is to allow affordable housing to be built at a greater density than allowed by underlying zoning in order to make more sites feasible for the development of affordable units. The form-based approach is being proposed, in part, because of concerns raised in community discussions around the height and scale of buildings. Directly regulating the height and scale (in terms of the number of stories) of an affordable housing development helps provide a degree of clarity and predictability to the outcomes, while providing enough flexibility to make affordable housing projects feasible at a greater density. c. While the approach proposed can be described as "form-based," the adoption of a comprehensive form-based zoning code, as seen in some other communities, is not being proposed. The proposed zoning would still be an overlay that modifies the underlying zoning requirements and is applicable only to one type of development, affordable housing projects. 5. How will design review happen? Would this proposal mean that abutters have no say in the process? a. The intent of the proposal is to create less restrictive zoning requirements for affordable housing projects so fewer projects would require special permits or variances, which are subject to appeal. By making certain affordable housing development allowable "as-of-right" the Overlay would enable projects to obtain building permits based on an established set of requirements without needing special approval processes that are subject to appeal, the Overlay includes multiple Page 5 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ opportunities for public input including at initial meetings with the affordable housing developer and throughout the Planning Board advisory review process. While the Planning Board recommendations would be non-binding, all housing developed under the Overlay would need to meet certain threshold design criteria in order to be eligible. There will also be multiple opportunities for public input in the threshold design requirements as they are developed. 6. Who would be able to take advantage of this zoning overlay? a. Only projects in which all units have permanent affordability restrictions would be able to benefit from the proposed zoning. Most of the 100%-affordable projects in Cambridge are currently developed by non-profit (e.g. Homeowners Rehab, Inc. and Just-A-Start) and public (Cambridge Housing Authority) entities. However, any developer - public, non-profit, or private - building 100%-affordable housing would be able to utilize the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning. Private developers building market-rate housing (with required inclusionary housing) would not benefit from the 100%-affordable housing overlay. 7. What would prevent for-profit developers from coming in, tearing down a building, building a new, larger building under the Affordable Housing Overlay zoning requirements, and then converting the building to market-rate luxury housing? a. Only projects in which all units have permanent affordability restrictions would be able to benefit from the Overlay. The City would monitor compliance with these restrictions and would have enforcement authority if the restrictions were violated. As a result, it would not be possible for an owner to rent or sell units created under the Affordable Housing Overlay at prices which were not affordable, as approved by the City. 8. Does the Overlay create two sets of rules, one for non-profit developers and one for : for-profit developers? Can we limit eligibility of the zoning overlay to non-profit developers only? a. Zoning does not and cannot distinguish between types of developers. b. The Overlay is available to any developer of an eligible AHO Project. c. The Overlay offers a tradeoff of less restrictive zoning in exchange for 100% permanent affordability. The tradeoff is voluntary and available to any type of property owner. However, it is unlikely to be attractive to most property owners because permanently affordable units do not generate property value. While private developers can access subsidy funding to create affordable housing, very few do given the complexity of affordable housing financing, long-term affordability restrictions required by funders, and the limited returns when compared to developing market-rate housing. QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPOSED OVERLAY DESIGN PROVISIONS 9. What are the proposed front yard setback requirements? Could the minimum front yard setback be reduced to match the setbacks of existing adjacent buildings? a. Under the proposal, the minimum front yard setback for an affordable housing project would be 10 feet, unless the underlying district requirement is already less than 10 feet. The required setback could be further reduced to be the average of the front yard setbacks for buildings on either side of the site. Page 6 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 10. What height restrictions are being proposed? Will transitions between districts be required? a. Under the proposal, where existing district standards allow a maximum building height of 40 feet or less, an AHO Project would be allowed to go up to four stories and a maximum of 45 feet. An AHO which contains active non-residential uses on the ground floor would be allowed to go up to 50 feet, while not exceeding four stories. b. Under the proposal, where existing district standards allow a maximum building height of more than 40 feet, an AHO Project would be allowed to go up to seven stories and a maximum of 80 feet. c. To transition from districts that allow taller heights to districts that only allow lower heights, the proposal includes a suggested "step-down" to five stories (60 feet) for portions of buildings that are within 35 feet of the lower-height districts, except in cases where the building abuts a non- residential use. 11. How would the Overlay impact open space in the community? a. Areas within an Open Space District will not be impacted by the Overlay. b. Housing created under the affordable housing overlay will need to comply with the requirements for private open space set forth in the Overlay, which would be 30% of the lot area except in districts where the current zoning already requires less open space or under specific instances where the requirement may be reduced to no less than 15% open space, if certain criteria are 12. What are the provisions for street level retail space in the Affordable Housing Overlay? a. Neighborhood retail provides an important amenity to residents and creating new housing benefits small retailers by growing their customer base. Affordable housing developments built in active corridors already often incorporate street level retail. As proposed, the Overlay provisions would include a requirement to design ground floor space to accommodate retail space in new buildings developed in certain locations and on certain properties that previously had active ground floor retail. QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPACT ON EXISTING STRUCTURES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 13. How would the Overlay interact with historic requirements? a. Historic review processes are separate from the Zoning Ordinance and would not be affected by this proposal. For example, all buildings that are more than 50 years old would remain subject to the City's demolition delay ordinance. Local affordable housing developers have a long and successful track record of working with the Cambridge Historical Commission to preserve, renovate, expand and re-use historic buildings as affordable housing. 14. The Overlay references the State Historic Register. What does this mean? a. The State Register of Historic Places is a listing of buildings, structures, and sites that have received local, state or federal designation for their historical (or archeological) significance; the listing is published annually by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Buildings identified in Page 7 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ the National Register of Historic Places are automatically included in the State Register. Certain requirements in the Overlay change if the AHO Project includes the preservation and protection of an existing building on the State Register of Historic Places. 15. Would the Overlay allow the conversion of an existing house to individual units? a. Yes, the proposal would provide additional zoning flexibility for the conversion or re-use of existing structures, both residential and non-residential, to affordable housing. 16. Could a developer re-use an existing building and also build new housing on the same site, through an addition or separate structure? How would this work? a. The proposal would allow re-use of an existing structure and creating new housing in an addition or separate building on the same site. Any addition or new structure would need to conform to the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay requirements, including minimum setbacks and height limits. 17. Can buildings be torn down? a. Zoning in general does not control whether or not a building can be torn down, instead it regulates what type of development is allowed to be built. Many existing buildings do not conform to current zoning requirements, and reusing a non-conforming building often requires special permits or variances. The Affordable Housing Overlay intends to make it easier for existing buildings to be repurposed for affordable housing by, for example, allowing interior alterations that would increase the floor area or number of units within an existing structure, allowing exterior improvements or additions without requiring a special permit or variance, and reducing parking requirements in cases where existing structures are retained. 18. Will building be torn down? a. While each site will be different, affordable housing developers in Cambridge have a long and successful track record of preserving and re-using existing structures for affordable housing. The Cambridge Historical Commission will continue to administer City ordinances relating to building preservation, including the demolition delay ordinance: At the same time, one of the purposes of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to allow more density for affordable housing in order to make development feasible. As a result, there may be cases where it makes more sense from a design and development perspective to replace existing structures with new construction. QUESTIONS REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN DESIGN 19. What will the green building requirements be? a. Any housing built under the Affordable Housing Overlay would need to comply with the City's existing Green Building Standards (Section 22.20 of the Zoning Ordinance). There is a pending proposal to update those requirements in the near future to require a minimum LEED Gold standard, or to use the Enterprise Green Communities or PassiveHouse rating system as an alternative. Page 8 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 20. How will recommendations from the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force interact with the new Affordable Housing Overlay? Will recommendations from the Task Force be incorporated into the zoning? a. The overall intent of the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay is to retain the standards for sustainable and resilient development that would apply to all projects. However, because the Climate Resilience Zoning Task Force is not expected to deliver recommendations until the end of this year, the exact impacts will not be known until specific recommendations are considered for adoption. 21. Could affordable housing developed under the overlay be required to comply with the City's new Net Zero requirements in advance of when these new requirements are scheduled to take effect for all residential development? a. Affordable housing developers in Cambridge, with the support of the Affordable Housing Trust, have a long and distinguished track record of producing highly sustainable housing and have been on the forefront of this issue. However, putting onerous requirements on affordable housing that would not be applicable to market-rate development could counteract some of the intended benefits of the Affordable Housing Overlay by making it more difficult and costly to create affordable housing. QUESTIONS ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING 22. What is affordable housing? a. Affordable housing is deed-restricted housing for income-eligible households where residents generally pay no more than 30% of their income for rent or a mortgage. Affordable housing funded by the City ranges from housing designed for formerly homeless individuals to homeownership units for families. Most City-assisted affordable rental housing is targeted to low- and moderate-income residents earning less than 80% of area median income (AMI). Homeownership housing is typically targeted to be affordable to residents earning less than 100% AMI. AMI figures are published on an annual basis by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). See current AMI chart below: Current Eligibility Limits - Area Median Income (AMI) by Household Size (households are eligible if their income is below these amounts) Household Size 80% AMI 100% AMI 1 Person $56,800 $75,500 2 People $86,300 $64,900 3 People $97,100 $73,000 4 People $81,100 $107,800 5 People $87,600 $116,500 (current as of 4/1/18) 23. Who lives in affordable housing and how are they chosen? How do we ensure they are eligible? Is this how the process would work for housing developed under the Overlay? a. Affordable housing in the city is occupied by a wide range of residents, including individuals, families, residents who work in a range of jobs, and retirees. Depending on the type of development, residents for affordable units may be selected by an affordable housing developer or by an involved housing agency, such as the City in the case of homeownership. Residents for Page 9 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ City-funded affordable housing are selected in accordance with the City's resident selection preference policies which include priorities for Cambridge residents and families. In some cases, the process involves a lottery for available units. In other cases, units are filled from a waiting list. In every case, screening is done to ensure that the tenant or buyer meets eligibility requirements for an affordable housing development. In addition, subsequent monitoring is done to ensure continued compliance with the requirements of the applicable affordable housing restriction(s). b. Affordable housing developed under the proposed overlay would be marketed in the same manner as City-funded affordable housing is currently marketed, including screening for eligibility and use of the City's resident selection preference policies. 24. What does an income limit mean? Would a single person earning less than $56,000 be eligible for any housing created under the Affordable Housing Overlay? a. Income limits refer to the maximum amount a household may earn in order to be eligible for an affordable unit. They do not refer to the minimum income amount. b. Income limits are derived from Area Median Income (AMI) figures established annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). c. In response to the question above, the current income limit for a single person at 80% of AMI is $56,800. As a result, a single person earning less than $56,000 would be eligible for housing created under the Affordable Housing Overlay proposal. 25. What does 100%-affordable mean? Would mixed-income be better? a. A 100%-affordable development means that all residential units will be subject to an affordability restriction to ensure that units will remain affordable. For the Affordable Housing Overlay, it is proposed that: i. at least 80% of the rental units must be set aside for households earning no more than - 80% of the Area Median Income ii. up to 20% of rental units may be set aside for households earning up to 100% of Area Median Income iii. at least 50% of ownership units must be set aside for households earning no more than 80% of the Area Median Income iv. up to 50% of ownership units may be set aside for households earning up to 100% of Area Median Income. b. Residents may earn less than these limits, particularly if the development includes additional rental subsidies, or is funded through a program which requires units to be affordable to lower income households. Larger buildings may be "mixed-income" communities with ranges of units affordable to households with different incomes under 100% of AMI. 26. How is affordability maintained over the long-term? What are the mechanics? a. Long-term affordability is maintained through deed restrictions, which are legal agreements that are recorded on the deed of each property with affordable units. Affordable housing deed restrictions outline the affordability requirements for the property including ongoing compliance requirements. The City records affordable housing deed restrictions on properties assisted with funding from the City or Affordable Housing Trust, and on properties where zoning requires that there be affordable housing. Housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay would be subject to a zoning-based restriction which would require that the housing remain permanently affordable. Page 10 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 27. What % of Cambridge's housing stock is currently affordable? How has that changed? What is the goal? How will this proposal help achieve that goal? a. Approximately 14.8% of the City's existing housing stock is restricted as affordable, with 8,117 affordable units in the city. This proportion has declined slightly since the end of rent control in the mid 1990's when the ratio was over 15%. b. The Envision Cambridge planning process has developed a goal of creating 12,500 new housing units by 2030, with 25% of new units (3,175 units) to be affordable. The 3,175 affordable unit production goal would require approximately 1,000 new affordable units to be created with City funding. If the Envision goals are achieved, the proportion of affordable units would increase to approximately 16% of the overall housing stock. c. City funds for affordable housing typically produce 50-60 new affordable units each year, with identifying opportunities to add to the affordable housing stock being the most limiting factor. The more areas where it is feasible to create new affordable housing, the more likely we are to continue to maintain our current rate of affordable housing creation as new resources are identified to meet the Envision goal for new affordable units. 28. How much local subsidy is needed to produce a unit of affordable housing? How much is appropriated annually? Based on this, can we estimate how many units could be expected to be created annually? a. Most affordable housing developments rely on a range of subsidized financing sources in order to be feasible, including local funding from the City and Affordable Housing Trust. b. In Fiscal Year 2019, $13.6 million in City funding was appropriated to the Affordable Housing Trust for affordable housing preservation and creation. c. The amount of subsidy needed to produce a unit of affordable housing will depend on a range of factors including acquisition cost, construction cost, and depth of affordability. Recently, the amount of local funds has ranged from $175,000 to over $250,000 per affordable unit. d. Assuming an average local contribution of $200,000 per unit, and annual local funding appropriations of $15 million, it is estimated that roughly 75 affordable units could be produced per year. 29. What is the Affordable Housing Trust and what role would it play if any? a. The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust was established in 1989 to preserve and expand affordable housing in Cambridge. The Affordable Housing Trust provides funding to developers of affordable housing in Cambridge. The Trust is a nine-member board, chaired by the City Manager, that meets on a monthly basis to review proposals for new affordable housing needing funding from the Trust. As a result, affordable housing developers receiving funding from the City will need to meet Trust funding priorities, such as a preference for family-sized affordable housing units. For more information on the Trust: https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/housingtrust QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE - WHAT CAN WE EXPECT? Page 11 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 30. Can the City prepare case studies of potential projects? Can staff produce models or provide photos of how the Overlay might work? a. Yes. Staff from the Community Development Department are working to develop graphical illustrations of how the Affordable Housing Overlay requirements might be employed on various sizes and types of sites. 31. I am concerned that this will destroy neighborhoods. What would prevent people from tearing down their homes and building much larger structures? • As noted above, the City's demolition delay ordinance, which is separate from zoning, will not be affected by the proposed overlay and would remain in effect. • Property owners would only be able to access the benefits of the Overlay if they were proposing an eligible AHO projects. In order for a project to be eligible, it would need to meet all of the requirements of the of the Overlay, including the requirement that 100% of housing created under the overlay would need to be permanently affordable. 32. How does this proposal relate to the Envision Cambridge population projections? Will the Affordable Housing Overlay result in an increase in population? a. The recently completed Envision Cambridge comprehensive plan included projections for increases in population and development between now and 2030. The plan also included housing production goals to create 12,500 new housing units, including 3,175 new affordable housing units. If adopted, the Affordable Housing Overlay would not impact the population projections put forth in the Envision Cambridge plan, but it would offer a better chance of reaching the affordable housing production goals of Envision by 2030. Without the Affordable Housing Overlay, affordable housing production will continue but would proceed more slowly, making it more challenging to reach this goal. 33. How many affordable units per year would be expected with this Overlay? a. The vast majority, if not all, of affordable housing requires subsidy funding in order to be feasible. As a result, the number of units created under the Affordable Housing Overlay will be limited by the amount of subsidy funding available, particularly City funding. b. Based on the anticipated City funding in coming years and housing creation goals, it is anticipated that 60-100 units of affordable housing could be created annually. This would be a slight increase over recent years. c. Funding has not been the most limiting factor to production in recent years, as access to sites where affordable housing could be built feasibly has been the most critical challenge. 34. Can we identify parcels or types of sites where the Overlay will be applied? a. It is not possible to identify specific parcels or sites where affordable housing providers would be expected to use the Overlay zoning as opportunities will depend on sites that become available, such as when owners decide to sell. b. However, it is possible to plan for the size and scale of new housing that is being encouraged through the Overlay. For instance, the proposal describes requirements that vary between lower density residential neighborhoods and the city's main corridors where larger buildings would be allowed. Page 12 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ 35. Is it true that developers would tear down any existing building in order to maximize density on the lot? • a. While each site will be different, affordable housing developers in Cambridge have a long and. successful track record of preserving and re-using existing structures for affordable housing. The Cambridge Historical Commission will continue to administer City ordinances relating to building preservation, including the demolition delay ordinance. At the same time, one of the purposes of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to allow more density for affordable housing in order to make development feasible. As a result, while there may be cases where it makes more sense from a design and development perspective to replace existing structures with new construction, the preferred approach will continue to be thoughtfully re-using historic buildings as affordable 36. Is it true that the majority of the units created will be small units, such as studios and one-bedroom units, in order to make development feasible? a. No, it is expected that the majority of new housing produced would include a large number of family-sized units as the creation of housing opportunities for families is a top priority of both the City, the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and most affordable housing funders. However, it is also likely that some new housing will exclusively consist of smaller units such as in cases where an existing single-family home is converted to small units. OTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE OVERLAY 37. If this proposal is not increasing the amount of affordable housing that could otherwise be built, why is the Overlay being proposed? a. A goal of the Overlay proposal is to enable more affordable housing to be created more quickly than would be possible without the Affordable Housing Overlay. Allowing larger buildings for affordable housing and a more predictable review process with as-of-right development options will allow affordable housing developers to assemble needed funding and begin construction more quickly. Shortening the development cycle will allow for savings as holding costs (financing, taxes, insurance, utilities) will be reduced. Small savings in development costs will reduce the need for City funds which can then be used to finance additional affordable housing. In the end, however, the amount of affordable housing created will be tied to the amount of funding available. A more predictable and efficient process to develop affordable housing will allow City funding to be used more effectively to help reach our affordable housing goals more quickly. 38. Will any housing developers actually take advantage of the Affordable Housing Overlay? It does not appear that it would provide profits to the developer, or even be financially feasible. a. The Affordable Housing Overlay is not intended to make affordable housing development profitable for market-rate developers and is not a market-driven strategy. 100%-affordable housing developments are typically undertaken by non-profit or private developers whose goal is to create affordable housing, not profits, as might be seen in market-rate development. Significant amounts of public subsidy are needed to make affordable housing feasible. The Affordable Housing Overlay would not replace the need for this subsidy but will help increase Page 13 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ feasibility by streamlining the development process and making more sites feasible for housing with the amount of subsidy available for new affordable housing. 39. Why not limit the Affordable Housing Overlay to the corridors and areas of the city where there is already more density? a. One goal for the Affordable Housing Overlay is to create opportunities to add affordable housing to areas of the city that do not now offer many affordable housing options. Expanding affordable housing to these areas of the City would help promote socio-economic diversity and create new housing opportunities in areas where many residents cannot now afford. 40. Can we require that housing developed under the overlay include a middle-income component? Can we expand eligibility up to 120% AMI? a. The greatest demand for affordable housing is among households earning less than 100% AMI, with most demand from households less than 80% AMI. In addition, most funding for affordable housing is limited to serving households earning less than 80% AMI. The Overlay proposal provides an option of making a portion of units available to families earning up to 100% AMI. 41. Can we require that housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay includes a homeownership component? a. The City has created hundreds of affordable homeownership units and will continue to encourage creation of new affordable homes for eligible homebuyers. However, the intention of the Overlay is to increase flexibility for housing developers to create affordable housing. Given that there are now very few sources of subsidy funding for affordable homeownership development, a homeownership requirement could be challenging to finance. 42. Will the Overlay provisions require that housing developed under the Attordable Housing Overlay includes family-sized requirement? a. As proposed, the Overlay does not include a requirement for family-sized units. One of the goals of the Affordable Housing Overlay is to make the development of affordable housing more flexible so that affordable housing developers are able to take advantage of a greater number of opportunities. Any added requirements could make the Affordable Housing Overlay less effective in achieving this goal. However, it is anticipated that affordable housing developed under the Affordable Housing Overlay will need funding from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust. The Trust has prioritized the creation of family-sized units and typically makes the incorporation of a large number of family-sized units a condition of its funding. As a result, it is expected most new housing would include family-sized units to address this priority. 43. Can the Overlay eliminate the need for curb cut approvals by the City Council? a. Curb cuts will continue to require approval by the City Council because that process is separate from zoning. 44. Should this be called an overlay if it applies to the whole city? a. "Overlay zoning," as it is being used in this context, refers to zoning that modifies the requirements of the underlying zoning district(s). Usually the term "overlay zoning districts" refers to districts only in defined sections of the city. The proposed zoning changes are being referred to as a "citywide affordable housing overlay" because it would modify the base zoning requirements Page 14 of 15 April 24, 2019

City of Cambridge 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Proposal - FAQ in all districts, and it is also the term that has been used most frequently to discuss the concept in the past. Page 15 of 15 April 24, 2019

CAMBRIDGE CDD®344 April 25, 2019 City of Cambridge City Council Housing Committee Revised Working Draft Community Development Department 100% Affordable Housing Zoning Overlay Attachment,

Community Development Department Trolley Square: new construction of 40 affordable units in mixed-use development Goals of Affordable Housing Overlay units; of all incomes; can build needed housing more quickly; and citywide by expanding the viability of affordable • Make it easier to permit 100% affordable housing housing in areas where there are fewer affordable • Foster equitable distribution of affordable housing purchasing sites to create new attordable housing; developments so that affordable housing developers accomplish more City with affordable housing funds. • Create opportunities in all neighborhoods for residents April 25, 2019 • Help affordable housing providers have more success in • Help reduce costs of building new affordable housing to

Trust Community Development Department Development? • Just A Start Corporation new affordable housing: • Homeowner's Rehab, Inc. • Cambridge Housing Authority competitions for scarce funding development is financially feasible What is Affordable Housing • Affordable housing developers must: • Capstone Communities / Hope Real Estate • Identify properties where affordable housing • Compete in the market for buildings and sites continued affordability of new housing created • Put in place long-term deed restrictions to ensure from city, state and tederal funders, often through • Assemble subsidy funding needed to build new housing • Typically funded by the City's Affordable Housing • Affordable housing providers currently developing The 70-unit Lincoln Way was approved by a comprehensive permit April 25, 2019

1096 1 - 15 0 units 16 - 50 51 - 100 201 - 318 101 - 200 Community Development Department Number of Affordable Units - Neighborhood Boundaries No residential units in block Challenges to building affordable housing: • High land costs and competition from market-rate developers • More difficult to build affordable housing in some areas of the city given zoning limitations Affordable Housing in the City • Appeal of discretionary approvals can add significant cost, long delays, and significant risk to affordable housing developers. Charles River April 25, 2019

Community Development Department Citywide Affordable Housing Overlay - Revised Working Draft April 25, 2019

Community Development Department reduction of family-size units and the loss of 2 units The comprehensive permit approved for the 40-unit Temple Place was appealed, delaying the project for almost 3 years, and forcing a re-design of the building which resulted in the the outcomes are uncertain need special permits or variances Why "as-of-right" zoning? the comprehensive permit process. • Comprehensive permit process provides • Under current zoning, many developments create clear and predictable requirements for flexibility for affordable housing projects, but April 25, 2019 affordable housing projects as an alternative to The intent of an Affordable Housing Overlay is to • Zoning regulates what is allowed or not allowed

various ways: dwelling units) Community Development Department Conversion of non-residential existing buildings? a non-conforming building could variance for added density (FAR, require significant site alterations require special permit or variance Meeting parking requirements can Additional flexibility means: Adding to the interior could require issues even if structure not changed Additions and exterior alterations to Current zoning complicates reuse in building creates setback, open space envelope limitations building is reused provide flexibility: How does this zoning help preserve of-right within form-based • Economics can make reuse preferable where feasible flexibility for minor alterations allowed to be maintained, with Affordable Housing Overlay can Existing setbacks and open space greater density inside the existing • Options to develop while preserving significant buildings Form-based approach would allow Allow additions and alterations as- April 25, 2019

4. Use Community Development Department revisions) 10. Enforcement 1. Purpose and Intent 2. Applicability (clarifications) 6. Parking and Bicycle Parking 5. Development Standards (revisions) 9. Implementation (to enable regulations) 7. Building and Site Design Standards (revisions) 8. Advisory Design Consultation Procedure (minor revisions) 3. Standards for Eligibility, Rent, and Initial Sales Price (minor Affordable Housing Overlay - Working Draft Revisions April 25, 2019

3-0 Community Development Department The 40-unit Putnam Green was approved by a special permit by the Planning Board Applicability the AHO standards as a whole. (including special permit provisions). • An affordable housing project that doesn't • A project under the AHO would need to meet meet all standards is subject to district zoning April 25, 2019

Community Development Department 70/85-105 70/85-105 12л 85/105-125 55/70-105 > 40 to 80 feet > 40 feet or less BA-1g 35° If the district allows: • More than 80 feet › 7 stories and 80 feet max. • 7 stories and 80 feet max. 35/45 100% Affordable Housing can be up to: Height and Scale , 70' 70-160 35/45 35/451a5/2 050 a Development Standards 55- Charles > 4 stories and 45 feet max. /50 feet with active ground floor River 45' - 78' 35' - 40' 80' - 350' 65-85 Open Space Districts Maximum Existing Height Limit April 25, 2019 10

residential Community Development Department abutting district line lower-height districts Transition Buffers Development Standards • Creates a "sky plane" - closer to the • Not required where abutting site is non- • From 7 stories to 5 stories within 35' of an building, the top stories become less visible • Step-down where taller height districts abut C-2B45' DISTRICE LOW HEIGHT e Street jd 60' 5-STORY 35' FLOOR Otis St 2-STORY 4-STORY 5-STORY 3-STORY BA 35/45 Cambridge St Sciarappa St OS April 25, 2019 ELEV.. GROUND

100' 10 20' REAR Community Development Department PUBLIC STREET 100° ~15% *15% 100' 50' 50° PUBLIC STREET Overlay: (pedestrian only) Permeable Open Space Open Space Clarifications: Development Standards toward open space requirement Setbacks and Open Space • Parking/driveways NOT Open Space • Permeable Open Space (current zoning • Outdoor bicycle parking not counted as For the purpose of the Affordable Housing • Upper-story balconies/decks not counted April 25, 2019 definition) can be green, planted, stone pavers 12

Community Development Department comprehensive permit Main and Cherry Condos: 10 affordable units approved by • Setbacks Site Design • Screening Ground Floors • Lighting shielded • Parking screened • Noise compliance • Grade level or above • Limit on "blank walls" • Pedestrian-oriented frontage Mechanicals, Refuse, Loading Environmental Design Standards • Flood plain performance standards • Breaking of long building tootprints • Green Building Requirements apply existing retail on site and abutting site • Height, depth, transparency for active uses • Other environmental laws/ordinances apply. • Active uses required in Business Districts with Building and Site Design (prev.) April 25, 2019 13

Community Development Department Auburn Court Apartments on Brookline Street Bellevue, WA Façades for a variety of approaches • Minimum standards to address typical concerns, allow flexibility Building and Site Design April 25, 2019

Façades Community Development Department for distinct approaches avoid unbroken, flat tacades • Projecting/recessing elements to • Flexibility at lower and upper floors Building and Site Design Bril April 25, 2019 15

Trolley Square, Cambridge Community Development Department Façades CLEAR GLAS reliet, shadow 15% MIN. REQD. GOLID OR OPAQUE promote transparency • Minimum window amount to • Architectural elements with depth, Building and Site Design FACADES FACING A PUBLIC 25% MIN• REQD. @ BA, BA-2, BB 4BC ZONING DISTRICT STREET OR PUBUC OPEN SPACE April 25, 2019 16